1951-04-02

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table
copies of orders in council under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, as follows: P.C. 1482 of the 22nd of March, 1951, transferring to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys the powers of the Minister of Trade and Commerce with respect to the dominion coal board; also P.C. 1483 of March 22, 1951, transferring to the Minister of Defence Production the remaining powers and authorizations with respect to unfinished business vested in the Minister of Trade and Commerce in respect of former munitions and supply activities.



THE BUDGET


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to announce that, subject to the usual reservations as to unforeseen contingencies, I intend to bring down the budget a week from tomorrow night, at eight o'clock.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jean Lesage (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I beg leave to table the following report:	Canada
and the United Nations, 1950.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 172 (from the Senate) to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
80709-97J



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Smith (Queens-Shelburne):: 1.	What use was made of the port of Shelburne, Nova Scotia, by the navy, army, and air force, during world war II?
2.	Is Shelburne harbour of sufficient size, depth of water, etc., to be considered a safe all-year anchorage for naval ships of all sizes and in large numbers?
3.	During world war II, what expenditures were made at Shelburne in respect of (a) real estate; (b) buildings and furnishings; (c) marine railway; (di) other construction and installation?
4.	In respect of each of the above, what has been (a) retained by the Department of National Defence; (b) disposed of?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	Navy: used as a refitting base; army coastal defences with heavy and light antiaircraft batteries located for the ports protection; Air force: seaplane base and land wireless telegraphy station.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) Real estate, $26,112.37; (b) Buildings
and furnishings, $3,359,784.22;	(c) Marine
railway, $451,390.00; (d) Other construction and installations, $1,885,373.76.
4.	(a) Retained by the Department of National Defence:
i.	All lands comprising the naval base, including the former Royal Canadian Air Force seaplane base and1 the former army hospital property.
ii.	The 3,000 ton marine railway.
iii.	Certain buildings and facilities have been repossessed by the Royal Canadian Navy. These include: main wharf; magazines; oil and gas line pump houses; dockyard administration building; cafeteria and one barrack block; shipwright shop; other minor buildings.
iv.	The army has retained 277.68 acres of land in the vicinity of Shelburne.
v.	Four former naval base buildings turned over to the army are now occupied by the reserve force.
(b)	Disposed of by the Department of National Defence:
i.	Boom defence property located in the town of Shelburne, part returned to the former department of mines and resources, and part declared surplus to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.

Questions
ii.	Former Colin King residence, used during war in conjunction with the boom defence site, declared surplus to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
iii.	All naval buildings and other naval facilities not listed under 4 (a) were declared surplus to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
iv.	88 former army buildings located on various army sites in the vicinity of Shelburne declared surplus to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
v.	Salvation Army hostel recently declared surplus and sold to the Canadian Legion by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.
vi.	Wireless telegraphy station declared surplus to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.


HIGHLANDS NATIONAL PARK
Mr. MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: 1.	Was any action taken during the year 1950 in respect to improvements to the Cape Breton Highlands park?
2.	If so, what type of work was undertaken, and what is the estimated cost of same?
3.	What amount was spent on (a) roadwork; (b) bridges; (c) piers; (d) tourist cabins?
4.	Will further work along same lines be undertaken during 1951?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	Yes.
2.	For the fiscal year 1950-51:
(a)	Reconstruction and preparation for hard-surfacing of 15-5 miles of the Cabot trail; shaping and gravelling of 18-5 miles of the Cabot trail; construction of three bridges on the Cabot trail. Estimated cost, $1,038,572.
(b)	Construction of 15 tourist cabins with
water and sewer facilities and one warden's cabin. Estimated cost $67,840.	[DOT]
(c)	Landscaping, extension of fire trails, construction of patrol cabin, erection of two 40-foot lookout towers, completion of gravity water supply system, completion of bowling green, construction of forest telephone to fire lookout towers, and improvements to picnic grounds. Estimated cost $13,202.
3.	Up to March 15, 1951:
(a)	and (b) Road work and bridges, $970,202.57; (c) piers, nil; (d) tourist cabins, $46,902.33.
4.	Yes.


FUNDY NATIONAL PARK
Mr. MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: 1.	What amount of money was spent on road construction in Fundy park, New Brunswick, during the year 1950?
2.	How many miles of roads were (a) reconstructed; (b) prepared1 for hard-surfacing; (c) hard surfaced; (d) new construction?

3.	What other improvements were carried out, such as (a) bridges; (b) water supply; (c) administration buildings; (d) tourist cabins; (e) staff accommodations?
4.	What was the total expenditure in connection with administrative and tourist recreational buildings?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	For the fiscal year 1950-51 to March 15, $365,982.33.
2.	(a) 3'8 miles; (b) nil; (c) base course of hard-surfacing 13 [DOT] 1 miles; (d) nil.
3.	(a) Bennett lake bridge replaced with a culvert and fill.
(b)	Water distribution system was extended to service cabin and concession areas.
(c)	Construction of outdoor amphitheatre, caddie house, central building for low rental tourist accommodation, outdoor kitchen shelters and campground facilities, tennis courts, completion of swimming pool and bathhouse, completion of golf club house, completion of registration building and construction of community hall.
(d)	Completion of 14 tourist cabins and construction of additional 15 tourist cabins.
(e)	Nil.
4.	For the fiscal year 1950-51 to March 15, $163,205.


PORT OF HALIFAX-GRAIN SHIPMENTS
Mr. Carroll:: How many bushels of grain have been shipped through the port of Halifax, Nova Scotia, in the last three years (a) in the summer months while the St. Lawrence river is open for navigation; (b) during the winter months while such navigation is closed?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: (a)	During summer months, August to November and April to July inclusive: Crop year 1947-1948, 2,207,596 bushels; crop year 1948-1949, 1,730,851 bushels; crop year 19491950, 982,434 bushels.
(b)	During winter monthsi, December to
March inclusive:	crop year 1947-1948,
5,543,965 bushels; crop year 1948-1949, 7,735,401 bushels; crop year 1949-1950, 6,026,563 bushels.
The above totals include vessel and rail shipments for both Canadian and American grain shipped through the port of Halifax.



WAR GRAVES


Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	Are regimental identifications being placed upon headstones now being erected in military cemeteries in Europe?
2.	How many of the original headstones which were erected without regimental identification have now had the regimental identification placed, thereon?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	Arrangements have been made for inscribing regimental identifications in the case of armoured and infantry units.
2.	None. It is not planned to undertake reinscription of headstones already erected until headstones for all deceased have been provided.



ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	What are the total costs to date to the government of Canada for the Turgeon royal commission on transportation?
2.	What is the total of accounts still outstanding, if any?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	$369,766.27.
2.	Approximately $11,700.



STRAIT OF CANSO BRIDGE

Mr. Carroll:: 1.	Has the board of engineers dealing with the proposed construction of a bridge or causeway across the Canso strait had a meeting recently?
2.	If so, when?
3.	If not, when will a meeting probably be held?
4.	When may a report be expected?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	Yes.
2.	January 31, 1951.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	In the near future.



SUBSIDIES AND PRICES

Mr. Boisvert:: 1.	Was a subsidy paid on wheat for the crop year 1931?
2.	If so, what was the amount paid per bushel to the farmers of the western provinces?
3.	What was the total disbursement of the Canadian government to pay that subsidy?
4.	What was the price of wheat per bushel for the crop year 1931?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Five cents per bushel.
3.	$12,709,685.82; in addition, certificates amounting to $7,746.33 outstanding, not yet paid.
4.	Yearly average cash price for No. 1 northern wheat (basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur): crop year 1930-31, 64-2 cents per bushel; crop year 1931-32, 59-8 cents per bushel.
As part 4 of this question was not clearly defined as to crop year, the price for each of the two crop years has been shown.
2.	1951	1521
Inquiries of the Ministry CIVIL DEFENCE



AGREEMENT BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND CANADA ON CO-ORDINATION MEASURES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: In view of
the intense interest in civil defence, when may the house expect to have the agreement which was signed on March 27 between the United States and Canada with respect to civil defence co-ordination measures as between the two countries?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I shall make inquiries. There
will be no delay; it will be brought down just as soon as the documents can be prepared.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: On March 20 I asked the parliamentary assistant to the Postmaster General what was being done to relieve the backlog of mail that had piled up in the Hamilton post office. May I ask the hon. gentleman again what has been or is being done to relieve that situation?


Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assistant to the Postmaster General):: When this question was asked the other day by my hon. friend I checked, and found there was no such backlog at that time.


Frank Exton Lennard: Oh, that is ridiculous.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Frank Exton Lennard: That is ridiculous.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT AS TO PRESENT SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: In
view of the statements that have been made outside the house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I wonder if the hon. gentleman would care to make a statement in the house regarding Korea, either today or the next day?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I shall be glad to make a
statement on an appropriate occasion, but if the hon. member reads what I said Saturday night I think he will find that I did not give expression to any new views on this matter.

Inquiries of the Ministry JAPANESE PEACE TREATY



REFERENCE TO ANNOUNCEMENT BY MR. DULLES ON SATURDAY, MARCH 31

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if Canada is a party to the announcement made on Saturday by Mr. John Foster Dulles in reference to the proposed treaty of peace or treaty of rearmament with respect to Japan; and if so, whether Canada gave her consent to having the statement made by Mr. Dulles on our behalf.


Hon.. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I believe Mr. Dulles spoke in Los Angeles on Saturday evening in regard to a treaty of peace with Japan. He spoke on behalf of the United States government, and not on our behalf or, so far as I know, on behalf of any other government. It is quite true, however, that a draft treaty of peace with Japan has been worked out by the United States government after informal consultations with certain other governments. That draft treaty has now been submitted to the Canadian government and other governments for their consideration, and in due course we shall have some comments to make on it. So far, however, the consultation has been entirely informal, and the draft represents the views of the United States only.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister if the draft he refers to is what Mr. Dulles referred to in his speech as a series of pacts?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I was referring to the the draft treaty of peace with Japan. However, during his speech I believe Mr. Dulles made reference to certain other possible security and mutual assistance arrangements between the United States and Australia and New Zealand. That may have caused some confusion in the minds of those who read press reports of his speech.


Gordon Graydon: Then may I ask the minister whether they would be the forerunners of a defence pact for the Pacific area?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I do not think so. This would be an arrangement that covered only the three governments I have just mentioned.
(Translation):



FERRY SERVICES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Public Works.

In view of the fact that the ferry-boat running between Cross Point, in Bonaventure county, and Campbellton, New Brunswick, was destroyed by fire a few days ago, could the Minister of Public Works inform the house of the steps which may be taken to speed up the building of a bridge between Cross Point and Campbellton?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minisier of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada learned with regret that the ferry mentioned by the hon. member had been destroyed by fire. In the past, interprovincial bridges have been built through subsidies paid by both provincial governments and the federal government. Up to now, the federal government has not been informed by the provinces that they would undertake to pay a portion of the cost of the bridge. If the provinces indicate that they are ready to do their share, I am sure that the government of Canada will seriously consider their request.
(Text):



INDIAN ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce) for the second reading of Bill No. 79, respecting Indians.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Before the motion carries there are several matters I probably ought to mention as the bill progresses.
As I think everyone in the house realizes, Canada's 136,000 Indians, scattered from ocean to ocean, constitute to us in this parliament an urgent and inescapable challenge. Our Indians are potentially either a magnificent asset or a menacing liability. By what means, and with the greatest likelihood of ultimate success, can we aid our Indians to make themselves the priceless partners both Indians and non-Indians fervently desire to see them become? I feel that the Indian Act as it is now before the house is a great improvement over what we had a year ago. I have a letter from one of the prominent Indian leaders in Canada in which he says that Bill No. 79 has removed at least seventy-five per cent of the objections the Indians had to Bill No. 267 hardly a year ago.
I want to congratulate the minister on this achievement. The letter to which I refer

comments upon the increasing sympathy and understanding displayed by the minister towards the Indians during the months he was meeting and discussing this matter with them. As I expected, the minister has great potentialities as a statesman. His youth and inexperience in the department might have plunged him into many difficulties which a year of careful study of the problem would have helped him to avoid, and have helped him to avoid. I believe it is a source of satisfaction to the minister himself that Bill No. 267 did not go through. I am sure that the Indians throughout Canada are far more likely now to have that magnificent future to which I referred than they would have been had the bill gone through less than a year ago.
There are still several matters which should be given careful thought as we progress in the study of the Indian problem. Some of them cannot be suitably dealt with in any Indian act, but must be considered by the department more or less apart from the Indian Act.
Among the many problems which confront us in respect of the Indians, there are four which stand out particularly, and to these I should like to refer specifically.
The first problem has to do with what we might call the psychological attitude of the Indians throughout Canada. There remains in most Indians a lack of confidence. The minister has dispelled much of that, but there are still the results of years and years of what we must call mismanagement of Indian affairs in Canada. This lack of confidence must be removed. I am sure that the minister recognizes that as readily as any other man in the house, perhaps more readily.
The second problem is one of education. I am sure that no Indian act can deal suitably with the problem of Indian education. It is an exceedingly difficult problem with which to cope, for many reasons. It is, though, a problem which must be grappled with and mastered. I see no reason why the education of the children of 136,000 Indian people in Canada cannot be taken care of as efficiently and satisfactorily as we are now taking care of the education of non-Indian boys and girls in Canada. Until this educational problem has been properly met, I fear we are not likely to lay the foundation of that stable superstructure which we hope to build.
The third problem is that of rehabilitation. One of the greatest dreads that the Indians have arises from the fact that if by any chance they should be excluded from the protection of the reservations and the treaties they would not be equipped to compete with the white man on anything like equal terms. Obviously in order to build up the
Indian Act
Indian population as partners in the great Canada to be, we simply must make adequate provisions for the rehabilitation of the Indians. By that I mean that we must enable the Indian to learn how to make his living, much as the Caughnawaga Indians have done. Many of these are able to compete in the structural steel industry with any white man on the American continent. I can see no reason why we cannot so train our Indians; the problem must be grappled with and solved.
The fourth problem is that of teaching the Indians to govern themselves, or of guiding, protecting and advising them while they learn to do so. It is something which we desire they shall learn to do.
I believe these four problems are not even successfully approached in the present Indian Act. As I have indicated, I doubt that they could be. However, while we are at this business of providing something like a satisfactory arrangement for our Indians, we must not forget these four problems.
May I just mention one or two considerations in relation to the matter of increasing Indian confidence. In times past I have suggested that we should have an Indian claims commission to go into all the various problems which the Indians have in their hearts. Here is an example of the kind of thing which must be met and dealt with. I am not sure that I should give the name of the reservation involved; I have thought about it for some little time, and I am inclined to believe I should omit naming the reservation on the floor of the house, but I will give it to the minister personally. Unless the members desire particularly that the name of the reservation be given, I shall not give it. Some of the things that are said in this communication to me cast a great deal of reflection upon a great many men who are not in a position to defend themselves, and it may thereby cause some injustice; but this is what is said concerning this particular reservation:
In the first place, this reserve covered a very large territory which comprised a great amount of spruce and fir lumber, also hardwood; but the reserve was allowed to be sold off by degrees-not only sold off, but different political parties were allowed to go in and take lumber at different stump-age rates. The reserve has now lost seven-eighths of territory of what it was when the reserve was set up, and the Indian population of the reserve has doubled, with hardly sufficient timber left to furnish firewood for the Indians now on the reserve. The lumber has been completely taken from the reserve.
On investigating I discovered that the relief given the Indians was not in any way adequate to their needs. The Indians of eastern Canada have no treaty fund on which to draw. They depend on the vote of relief from parliament from year to year. There was a small hospital on the reserve, but there

Indian Act
were only one or two rooms available for patients outside of the staff and the teachers in the schools on the reserve.
I am just quoting excerpts from the statement. It continues:
So far as I can learn, this reserve has been used as a political football, and everything is operated on a patronage basis. The clothing, food and everything is to be supplied by someone who has the patronage for this part of the constituency.
Whether or not the details concerning this reservation will justify the statements which my communicant makes, certainly when a responsible man makes such statements as these, they should be examined with the minutest care.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: Where is this
reserve?


John Horne Blackmore: I could easily give the name, but I gave reasons why I thought it would be better not to state it. There will be men involved, probably men right in this house, who will perhaps not be able to satisfactorily answer the allegations. If it is desired I can give the name in the committee, but after what I have already said I think that I should not give the name of the reserve to the house and to the country. I shall give it to the minister.
I imagine that if we were to go from ocean to ocean in Canada we would find dozens of cases at least as bad as the one I have cited. Will someone tell me how in the world the minister, with his overworked department,-and no matter how large his department is, it will be overworked-can possibly do justice to these many cases which have grown up through scores of years, unless a claims commission is set up?
If an Indian claims commission were appointed with authority to proceed with an absolutely free hand, the only demand upon them being to ascertain what was just, and to suggest how the injustice which the Indians have suffered could be removed, that would be the kind of thing I have in mind.
There are a great many other things. I will just mention one more. I do not believe it would be well at the present time for me to go into details; all that I need to do for the members of the house is to hold up this file of documents which I have on my desk, all bearing on the matter I am going to talk about, and I think they will all see that there is a great deal that can be said. I would rather have time to go into it with care before I do anything more than make a few remarks in a general way.
I refer now to the situation which confronts us with respect to the Six Nations Indians. The Six Nations Indians appear to believe,

as a matter of religion and of history, that their organization was founded by the Great White God to whom I referred in one of my previous speeches. Because of that they believe that their hereditary chiefs are men Clothed with hereditary authority of the highest possible kind. They maintain that in 1924-and they submit documentary evidence to prove what they maintain-men representing the department of Indian affairs in Ottawa violated their privileges by entering their-what word shall I use? I was going to say "sacred" but that is hardly the right word-their buildings where they kept their records, seizing those records and subjecting certain of their respectable leaders to indignities which in the minds of these people amount to an outrage.
How can the minister possibly arrive at the facts concerning this matter? When we remember that the Six Nations Indians constitute by far the most influential, well-organized and, we might say, powerful group of Indians in Canada, I think we shall realize that until we can satisfy the Six Nations Indians that justice has been done them to make up for all the unfairness they have suffered, we have not really placed ourselves on a sound foundation in constructing an Indian affairs set-up which will endure. I will say no more about the necessity for an Indian claims commission, although the information I have at my disposal would occupy several speeches, each as long as Mr. Speaker could possibly allow me to make.
May I now turn for a few minutes to the matter of education? The members of the house as a whole are familiar with the problem which confronts us in relation to Indian education. I would imagine that the majority of the members of the Indian affairs committee would agree that, properly speaking, education of Indians is a matter which properly ought to come under the direction of the provinces. If the Indians are to be placed on a basis comparable with that which obtains among their non-Indian fellows, they also must come under the provinces in the matter of education.
But no province in Canada is prepared to assume responsibility for the education of the Indians without adequate monetary compensation and guarantee. This puts the department at Ottawa in a difficult position. I want the minister to realize that I recognize that fact. But that fact does not remove the insistence of the demand that there shall be adequate treatment of the Indian educational problem. If the department must hand over the throttle, so to speak, in respect of money and say to the provinces "You solve this problem of Indian education and we

will give you almost a blank cheque while you do it", it will have to do just that. Unless the dominion is ready to do that, I do not see how we are going to solve the problem of the education of the Indians. I am sure that any province in this dominion will gladly assume that responsibility and will admirably discharge it if provided with the funds with which to do the job.
We must not expect to get education for our Indian boys and girls as cheaply as we get education for our white boys and girls. We know how costly it is to educate our non-Indian boys and girls. We must expect it to be much more costly to educate adequately the Indian boys and girls, and we must be prepared to stand right up and face that fact. I know that it is rather trite to speak in the house about what I am going to mention, but when we face a $5 billion appropriation for war for three years, we should not be too mercenary when it comes to making provision for the education of the great Indian people that is to be. One hundred and thirty-six thousand Indians in seventy-five years will be a large proportion of our Canadian population-not a body of men and women who can be disregarded in any respect or skimped in their treatment.
The problem of education remains to be solved. The minister will be virtually as helpless in his attacks on this problem as previous ministers have been, no matter how earnest and eager to solve it he may be, unless we put an adequate financial guarantee behind him. He must not have to go before the cabinet and before the treasury board and, I was going to say, break his heart in a vain effort to get them to loosen up and give him the money with which to do the job. That is just stating the facts in a simple way.
We now come to the matter of rehabilitation of the Indians. As I indicated, that means teaching the Indians how to live in the environment in which they dwell. This morning, while I was meditating on this speech, I was thinking of how, when I was a small boy, the Indians would come to visit our home, as they did the homes of most non-Indian people in the neighbourhood, just out of friendliness. The Indians were fine, friendly and co-operative people, as I knew them. They were altogether different from the Indians in the United States, because they had been treated much more fairly and honourably than the Indians in the United States had been treated. Whenever an Indian came to our home, we were fairly sure he knew how to tan a hide; almost no matter how long the hide had been off the animal,
Indian Act
you could turn it over to the Indian, and he would go and tan it and make a good job of it.
I was wondering if there is any reason why the Indian could not be taught to do the necessary work in the tanning of leather and in the making of shoes. How skilful they were in making mocassins with the most meagre equipment with which to do it! I remember the works of art and efficiency which the Indians used to produce and bring to my parents to offer for sale; I refer to the mocassins beautifully trimmed with beads artistically placed on them. People whose ancestors were able to do such work over sixty years ago surely can be taught to do almost any kind of handicraft work with great skill and efficiency. Why should they not, if they were guided by vocational directors, acquire any kind of skill which they would need in order to fit into our everyday economic life? Why should Indians not be most skilful electricians, plumbers, shoemakers, garage men, mechanics generally, and so on all through the list?
There is another thing that has always been a conundrum to me. When the Indians came to our home, no matter what was wrong with us

and we had plenty wrong with us, struggling as we were under trying conditions in those old pioneer days, when we could not give much thought to having the kind of food we needed; we were lucky if we could get enough to keep body and soul together-they knew what to do. If it was in the summertime they would go out and go down to the brook, and the first thing we knew they would come back with several different kinds of herb. They would put these together and they would often cure whatever was wrong with us almost with astonishing skill. They knew the poultices and they knew the medicines generally. The Indians must have had remarkable skill in the matter of medicine. Why should we not have more Indian doctors today? We already have a number of our girls from the Indian reservations learning to be fine nurses. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister will find it an impossible task to rehabilitate the Indians and to teach them to be perfectly successful in competition with the white man in almost any vocation that you could name by which the white man makes his living.
All that is necessary is to have someone who understands the Indian and is sympathetic with him, who has money enough at his disposal to send the Indian boys and girls to technological schools and all that sort of thing. I do not think there will be any difficulty in rehabilitating the Indian financially. And just as soon as the Indians are sure that they can step out into the paths of

Indian Act
the white man and make their way much of the anxiety which inhibits them today, and which fills them almost with consternation, will be dispelled as a mist on a July morning. Therefore I think we can approach this problem with complete confidence if we will just go about it in the right way.
That covers education and rehabilitation. Now, the fourth problem I mentioned, and which I shall deal with only briefly, is that of teaching the Indians or helping the Indians to learn to govern themselves. I do not think there will be any difficulty in that sort of thing if we just go about it right, with the advice that we can get from men skilled in Indian affairs. But the problem has to be solved.
One group of Indians who live on a reservation not very far from where I live-not the one that is in my constituency-asked me, "By all means"-I can see them now with the greatest concern on their faces- "let us ourselves have charge of the education of our boys and girls and we will see that they will get the training they need. We want our boys and girls to be as skilful as the white men are. We know their problems. Let us have a hand in it. Put the money and the facilities at our disposal, under the direction of white men, if you wish, but let us determine how we are going to do it."
I am not saying that that group of Indians would succeed, but they certainly believe they can succeed, and where they honestly believe they can succeed I am prepared to give them a chance. They would make mistakes, but it is the God-given right of any man in government to make a mistake. Should they make mistakes and learn by those mistakes they will feel far stronger and far more satisfied.
I do not think I need to say much more about the matter of allowing the Indians to govern themselves. Remember, they did it for 2,000 years or more before the white man came. They went to war a great deal and had many troubles like a good many others, but the Six Nations Indians had pretty well cleared up the difficulties of war among themselves. As far as I can learn the Six Nations had rather an effective government which they possibly formed themselves. If we build on the basis of what they had achieved in the past, on what they think they can do now, I believe we shall have staunch and happy allies in the Indians, and real partners in the building of this commonwealth we are working for.
How shall we go about it? With the limited amount of attention that I have been able to give this matter, struggling along as all
[Mr. Blackmore.l
other hon. members are, coping with the scores of different problems, it seems to me that it would be advisable for us to have two commissions. One of these should be an Indian claims commission. Before that commission the Indian could present his case and take it to court, if need be. He would be sure that when he had a case it would be heard, and that the decision would be just.
I believe there should be a rehabilitation commission also, quite independent of the department. As nearly as I can make out the department of Indian affairs is largely an administrative department. It has been beset with all sorts of worry, and I have the greatest sympathy for the men who have struggled with the Indian problem in times past, but it is not -a department that can get out and find facts in all cases, weigh those facts satisfactorily, and draw suitable conclusions, as a royal commission would be able to do. If we had a rehabilitation commission to take charge of the education and the training of Indian boys and girls to meet the competition of the world before them, and the providing of funds for those on land to establish farms and herds and to engage in sawmilling and things of that kind by which they could make their living, I believe that commission would do a highly gratifying job for our generation and the generations yet to come.
I do not know but that it would be a good thing to let the Indian claims commission enter into the problem of teaching the Indians to govern themselves. It may probably be better to teach the Indians to govern themselves under the rehabilitation commission, but certainly I believe we shall never succeed in this country in dealing with the Indians adequately until we do have at least two commissions just as effective as our transport commission and just as efficient as our wheat board is or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is. These two will have just as much responsibility and authority. Probably it will cost just as much money, or a good deal more, but they would do the job if-we had the right men. Probably the best thing to suggest is to have two commissions, one the Indian claims commission and the other the rehabilitation commission.
May I close, Mr. Speaker, by reading one more compliment to the minister? It is an excerpt from a news report of a meeting in Macleod, Alberta, that appears in a recent issue of the Lethbridge Herald. The minister will recognize the two chiefs who are speaking, and he will know that out there they are saying just what they feel. The excerpt reads:
Bill 79, the new federal government bill dealing with Indian affairs, meets the wishes of the Indians

by about 75 per cent, Chief James Gladstone told the gathering in speaking of his meeting in Ottawa at the end of February with other Indian delegates to confer with Citizenship Minister Walter Harris, sponsor of the legislation.
"It was the first time in the history of Canada that Indians from Halifax to Vancouver had gathered to discuss their problems with the government," Chief Gladstone stated. "I thought it was the sublimest moment of my life," he said.
He paid tribute to Mr. Harris as the first minister at the head of Indians affairs to search out the viewpoint of the Indian. The Indian has to be educated before Bill 79 can be applied in its entirety, he said.
"It may take a generation," Chief Gladstone stated. "If the vote was forced on us now the Indian would not know how to meet it. We want to be Indians, always Indians, even though we gradually take full responsibility as Canadian citizens," he declared.
"We listened to Mr. Harris and we feel that what we get will be gradual," Chief Gladstone said. "We will have to satisfy him that we can handle it first," he stated.
Chief Albert Many Fingers, Chief Gladstone's fellow' delegate, stated the Indian's first need is education and that there is a need of day schools. The two chiefs stated the government is apparently willing to improve upon the education facilities of the Indians.
I believe that that will be valuable not only to the minister but to the members of the house who address themselves to this problem, as an indication that much progress has been made. I am of the opinion that we can make just as much progress in the next year by the earnest, tactful efforts of the minister as was made during the last year. I would not be surprised to see that he may find it advisable to adopt the suggestion which I have tentatively made concerning commissions, which will find the facts, weigh them, sift them, organize them and present them to him so that he, with his fine skilful officials to assist him, can make the necessary decisions to present to parliament.
Out of all this I believe we shall be able to say honestly, and confidently that we in our generation shall have done our bit for the Indians; that we shall have done all we can to give them the square deal they deserve.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of this bill justifies the attitude taken by many of us last summer, when we expressed the view that the inadequacies in the bill then presented were such that it should be redrafted and changed, and that so far as possible the Indians should be again consulted. I agree with the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) that the minister, in calling together representatives of the Indians from one end of the country to the other, has done much to make this measure more acceptable than any proposals of the kind we have had in the past. That is to say, the Indians will feel that they themselves have had some influence in
Indian Act
formulating policies which will come into effect as a result of this measure.
No matter how good an Indian Act we may have, it seems to me the principal problem is one of administration, involving the raising of the standards of education, health and living, and the standard of citizenship-of a new type, of course-among the Indians. I hope that what the hon. member for Lethbridge said a few moments ago toward the end of his speech will be said of this generation both by the Indian people and by the people of Canada generally. But if this generation fails to the extent that previous generations of Canadians have failed in doing justice to the original inhabitants of this country, then indeed we shall not deserve much praise. On the contrary, as a generation, we shall deserve only condemnation.
I have often thought it strange that after something like one hundred and eighty years since the first reserves were established in Canada, and now after about eighty-four years since confederation, we have living among us a depressed people, a people who have the attributes to make a contribution to our country, a people capable of enjoying standards of living and education as high as those of the white population with whom they dwell.
There have been evidences that it is possible that our Indians are capable of enjoying high standards of living and of education. For years many men and women of Indian descent have occupied important positions in Canada. I am not thinking only of those who have been full-blooded descendants of the original inhabitants of our country; I am thinking as well of those who have had high percentages of Indian blood in them. I think of a chief justice in one of our western provinces. I think of people of Indian descent who have occupied positions in various churches, and who have occupied posts in the Department of National Defence. Indeed I believe one of these attained the rank of brigadier in the first world war, and today is a respected magistrate in the second largest city of Canada.
Some years ago I had the opportunity of seeing some of the Indian schools. At that time I was fairly familiar with educational standards and age groups, and I remember being struck by the fact that the intelligence of the average Indian child in primary grades measured well with the average white child in primary grades in the ordinary common schools of the country.
Then something seemed to happen. They went back-indeed, they were encouraged to go back-to their old conditions. Gradually their condition reverted, and no further

Indian Act
attempt was made to provide opportunities for them to develop the aptitudes about which the hon. member for Lethbridge spoke. That they have those aptitudes is certain.
I know the Indian Act does not deal in any respect with Eskimos. I have been told, however, on more than one occasion that when airfields were established in Eskimo regions of the far north it was discovered that the Eskimos had aptitudes that in some instances were above those of the white men who were associating with them. As engineers they learned rapidly about the mechanism of even complicated machines such as airplane engines. Intelligence tests given to Indian children in North America show that, if tests are based upon the environmental experience of those involved, those children have as high intelligence as any of the white children.
I have often compared our record in Canada with that of the white settlers in New Zealand. When I say this I am not thinking of New Zealand under a Labour government, but of New Zealand in the long years before that government took office. In the early part of the last century-yes, indeed, approaching the second half of the last century-the original inhabitants of New Zealand were cannibals. They were not cannibals in the sense in which some other tribes were, as a matter of ritual; they were cannibals because they liked human flesh. As a matter of fact some of the missionaries who went out there became food for the Maoris. I remember well that in the city in which I was educated a memorial pulpit was erected in the cathedral to the memory of a missionary who was killed by the Maoris in 1845 or 1846. We were told that he or some of his colleagues had been consumed by them.
Yet, when parliamentary institutions were established in New Zealand in 1856, followed by fifteen years of struggle with the Maoris, we find that in 1871 they were given the franchise, and that four Maoris were elected to the parliament of that country. Today the Maoris are not assimilated-and in this country no one wants to assimilate the Indian -but they are integrated into the New Zealand community. Their sons have occupied high positions in the army, the air force, the church and the state, and have served in cabinets of the Dominion of New Zealand. Yet after nearly 200 years, after eighty-four years since confederation, our Indians in the main, with the exception of the Caughnawaga reserve, the Brant reserve and one or two other places notably in British Columbia, present a picture of economic and social depression, lacking sufficient educational facilities, living under health conditions that

are a reflection on the whole of our country with tuberculosis, though the incidence has been greatly reduced lately, still taking a relatively greater toll than among the white population in the same areas.
These are indications not of the failure of the Indians but of the failure of the white settlers of Canada to do what should have been done for this intelligent, one-time physically fit and loyal aboriginal population of this country. I agree with the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) that much depends on the education of the Indian child. I do not think that our educational efforts among the Indians have been successful. I know many of the Indians regard that as one of our greatest failures. That was brought out again and again when the committee was sitting. They desire that educational opportunities for their children shall be provided in a greater, more comprehensive and more efficient manner than before, comparable in all respects to those provided for Canadian children generally.
After all, these people are capable of independence, of initiative, of making a contribution to the cultural, economic and social life of the country in which we live, and they have been denied that opportunity. To a very large extent I think that is due to the fact that our attitude has been purely paternalistic, and the Indian Act has been administered purely from the paternalistic point of view. Not enough opportunity has been given to the Indian population to guide their own destinies and to raise their standards of life and of living.
When we look at the way in which their old treaty rights have been set aside, forgotten or impinged upon, that also is a reflection on our good faith as a people in our dealings with the Indian population. Therefore, while I think that the bill is a distinct improvement over the old Indian Act, while it is an improvement over the bill that was presented to us last summer, nevertheless it is defective in that it perhaps has not sufficient vision in the realm of education and, I regret to say, in the realm of health of the Indians. I would have liked to see more direct control of health facilities among the Indians placed in the Indian department, although I am not for one moment belittling the great improvement that has been made since the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) took over the supervision of that department. I think there has been a very great improvement, and I want to say that; but we are concerned with the standards of living and the social rehabilitation, if you like to call it such, of the Indian people.

There are two fields that need particular attention, health and education, and to a large extent the two go together, education for health, health for education. Consequently 1 would like to see more attention to the problem of health and welfare in the bill. However, as I have already said, the bill is an improvement over the one introduced last year. I hope that in the administration of the new act every attempt will be made to raise the standards of the Indians and to use those aptitudes that they have in such large measure to enable them to enter upon vocations and ways of life that will not only help them to improve their physical and economic-conditions but also enable them to make a contribution to the cultural life of our country and which will gradually bring about the integration-not assimilation-of the Indian population into the general population of Canada.
I think the whole basis of our thought over the last number of years with respect to racial and other differences in our country has not been to try to make all Canadians of the same pattern of speech, thinking, religion or culture, but rather that each particular group in Canada, whether they be English, Scots, French, Ukrainian or whatever they may be, by preserving their cultural heritage, may contribute together to the making of a Canadian culture which will be not of one sort, kind or pattern but rather like a mosaic, a picture composed of many different types of stone or, in the words I have just used, of many cultures. Therefore I welcome the bill as an improvement. But no bill, no matter how good, will succeed unless we have a minister, and a department manned by officials, who have a high ideal and who are determined not to keep on treating the Indians as children but as human beings who have capabilities which, if given scope, will enable them to make a contribution not only to their own welfare but to the welfare of the country in which they and we hope to live together in unity for generations to come.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to take only three or four minutes in discussing the bill at the present time inasmuch as I have spoken in the house many times in the past about Indian affairs, and I do not wish to repeat what I said on those occasions. Second, a good deal of what I might otherwise have said has already been said by speakers who have preceded me. Needless to say, I welcome the introduction of the bill at a fairly early stage in the session when we will have time to consider it without being pressed to get it through so
Indian Act
that the session may end. That is one great advantage, so far as the timing of the introduction of the bill is concerned, over the one which was introduced last year.
I am sorry that I was not able to be here when the minister made his speech introducing the bill. However, I have read it carefully and by and large I agree with the general tenor and spirit of the speech he made on March 16 last. The steps he mentioned in that speech as having being taken to obtain the opinion of the Indians and others across Canada interested in the welfare of the Indians I think were exceptionally good and have had fruitful results, as indicated by the changes that have been made in this act. That is also indicated, if I may say so, by the different attitude being displayed by the minister this year as compared with last year, for which I commend him. I believe the steps taken to obtain the views of the Indians were extremely important as far as the psychological effect upon the Indians themselves was concerned. They feel they are in on the thing now, that they have been consulted, and that some weight has been given their opinions. If any Indian act is to work I think one of the essentials is that the Indians themselves have some confidence in it, and are able to feel that they had a hand in framing it.
In the same way I think it was an excellent move to bring Indian representatives from across Canada to Ottawa for a conference, as was done at the end of February and the beginning of March of this year. I was glad to learn from the minister's speech that such a large degree of unanimity existed among those representatives. The situation as far as Indians are concerned differs greatly as between the various parts of the country, so it is almost impossible to bring in any act that will please everybody. Of course I do not suppose any act of any kind ever pleases everyone; but because of the great difference between living conditions among Indians in the maritimes and those on the prairies, for instance, what may suit one group will not suit another. So I hope this will be taken into consideration and there will be some flexibility in the application of this act.
In my opinion a number of clauses in the present bill could still be improved. Some of them I would say will prove unacceptable to the majority of the Indians when they see them in operation, even though a majority of their representatives did not oppose them at the conference. I should hope that when this bill is considered in committee the minister and his officials will not take an inflexible attitude toward amendments to various clauses. I believe the bill can be

Indian Act
further improved, and I sincerely trust that in the committee every effort will be made to bring about those improvements. I see the minister nodding his head, which is a good sign.
I do not want to go into the various clauses at this time. Particularly do I not want to draw down upon my head your ire, Mr. Speaker, for transgressing the rules. However, I should like to make reference to one or two of the provisions which I think are not acceptable and in which I hope some changes may be made. The first is section 4 (2) in connection with the power of the governor in council to abolish Indian reserves, or to abolish the Indian status as far as an individual is concerned. That has been referred to already, so I need say no more about it. One thing which needs revision, which is still unsatisfactory, is the definition of an Indian, which takes up several clauses of the bill. I would agree with the statement by the minister, I think it was last year, that the business of defining an Indian is extremely difficult. It is very hard to draw up a definition that is simple and at the same time more or less all-inclusive. The definition in the old act was comparatively simple. The definition in this bill, as I say, is far from simple, running through a considerable number of clauses; and I think it is quite bad in some respects. Then the matter of the disposal of children is something else in which I believe there could be a change for the better, and I trust something will be done in that regard.
One paragraph in the minister's speech disturbed me to some extent. At page 1352 he said:
I received many letters from people saying: There is nothing whatever in the bill about old age pensions for Indians. Similarly there were many letters saying: You have not provided in the bill that, wherever possible, an Indian child should obtain the same standard of education that a non-Indian receives. The house will readily understand why those matters are not contained in the bill. Those are matters which are provided for in this house by votes in the estimates and not by legislation.
The reason that disturbed me is that in 1945, when I first came into the house, I moved a resolution asking that the government take into consideration the payment of the old -age pension to Indians. That resolution was debated for at least a day, and at the end of the day the then Minister of Mines and Resources stated that it should be allowed to stand because they proposed, and he promised, that a committee would be set up to consider Indian affairs and that as a result amendments would be made to the act. So he did not think anything could be done about paying old age pensions until the committee had met and the act had been

amended. That has been more or less the answer ever since, except that last year a payment was introduced which was supposed to be in lieu of old age pensions. Ever since 1945 the story given us has been that old age pensions could not be paid to Indians until this act was amended; but now the act has been amended this statement would seem to indicate that old age pensions are still not to be paid.
I do not think it is much use for the minister to say that this matter should be dealt with in the estimates unless he is prepared to deal with it in that way. We on this side of the house certainly cannot put anything in the estimates for the payment of old age pensions; and if they are not provided under the Indian Act by statutory authority, it means that they can only be paid- if the minister or the government decides to put an item in the estimates. Personally I would much rather see this thing settled by a provision in the act that the Indians shall be treated, in the matter of old age pensions, just as other citizens of Canada are treated. That is all that would be required, one short clause added to the act. Then we would have the statutory authority for equality of treatment for the Indians in that regard.
The situation is the same as far as education is concerned. I know that is not something which can be written into the act, however; and I must say that during the last four years in particular there has been a very considerable improvement in education as far as the Indians are concerned. However, I would like to have more definite assurance in regard to what we might call a policy of educational opportunities equal to those afforded white children, as far as that may be possible. The only reason I say that is that some of the Indians in the more remote areas of this country will not, for some considerable length of time, be able to have equal educational opportunities with the white children in the more populous areas. As has been indicated by other speakers, this matter of the education of Indians is perhaps the most important question in so far as the handling of our Indian problem is concerned. As was stated by the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) a short time ago, only by providing improved educational facilities can the Indians possibly be integrated with the rest of our population.


Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two general remarks on this subject which I should like to take the opportunity of emphasizing at this time. Practically no statement which can be made, in this house or elsewhere, about Indians could be correctly applied to

all the Indians in Canada. There is an almost unbelievable difference between the state of their educational and financial advancement in the various parts of the country, so that it is impossible to say that the Indian is this or the Indian wants that. Such statements are likely to cause a great deal of misunderstanding. Not only is that true as between one part of the country and another, but in my own district, which happens to be one which represents both coastal and interior areas, the difference is almost beyond belief.
We have Indian settlements on the coast where the majority of the people living in those villages are paying income taxes on larger amounts than I ever hope to pay income tax upon, and whose homes are of a better quality than any it has yet been my privilege to have. Two hundred miles or less from those areas we have villages in which the conditions are nothing less than deplorable, and those conditions apply both to the physical circumstances under which the Indian lives and to the mental and physical condition of those Indians themselves. In trying to meet this Indian question, therefore, we must realize that we cannot adopt any hard and fast rule that applies to the Indians as a whole. No section which can be written into an act of this sort, or very few of them, can be said to apply in detail to the Indians of Canada. If such a section contains maximum or minimum provisions which apply directly to certain Indian groups, then it is certainly going to be out of place in its application to other groups.
It is as a result of that that many of the sections of this act appear to me to be safeguarded. It is because of the difference between the various Indians, as mentioned by the member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness), that these sections which are causing the greatest amount of opposition throughout the country have to be retained in the act. I believe that all legislators, and certainly all legislators who have had occasion to practise law, will realize that in many sections of acts such as the Criminal Code there are maximum penalties which are out of all proportion to the seriousness of some of the offences committed under those sections. Those maximum penalties are not there to be applied in every case. They are to be applied in the extreme cases where the person who is administering that act believes they are applicable. I submit the same rule applies to those sections which have to be retained here, where in certain cases the minister, who I presume will be acting upon the advice of his departmental officials, has certain overriding authority. It does not follow that he is going to use that authority, even if he considers it might be advisable to do so. But I
Indian Act
hope that it follows he is going to use that authority when he considers it is necessary in the interests of the Indians concerned that some act should be overridden by the power which has been retained in certain sections of this bill.
I am going to say something which could easily be misinterpreted, Mr. Speaker. It is because I submit that safeguard must be in the act to apply to the more backward and more helpless Indians, I think there is a duty on those of us who are in this house, and on the citizens of Canada who are not in this house, to discuss this matter and deal with this subject in such a way that the faith of the Indian in the government of Canada will be retained. In order to make it clear to my friends opposite, I am not referring at the moment to this government but to the government of Canada as an institution. The government of Canada as an institution is primarily responsible for protecting, as well as for advancing, the Indians of Canada. So long as they must look to that government for that protection, and for that advancement, it is certainly up to those of us who claim to have the interests of the Indian at heart to see that he looks to that overriding authority with a certain amount of faith and trust.
I assume we are all discussing this act and its administration with a view to the improvement of conditions for Indians, and not with a view to arousing agitation or opposition to the bill either amongst the Indians or the whites. I do not suppose I am the only member who has found in his district a certain inclination among some Indians and some whites to use the fact that this bill is up for discussion as an excuse to arouse a certain amount of agitation and opposition, not necessarily on party political lines at all but in order that there might be unrest in the district. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that most members in whose ridings there reside a large number of Indians, and who state that does not exist in their district, are either not very familiar with what is going on in their district or are extremely fortunate. I say with regret that in my district there are those who have not the interests of either the Indian or the Dominion of Canada at heart who are making use of this bill as an opportunity to belittle and hurt the body politic of Canada.
I should like to mention one other point in connection with the act. We must remember that administration and legislation are not the same thing. I tried to point that out at the commencement of these few remarks in my reference to the minimum and maximum. Those who are charged with the administration of the act will be the people

Indian Act
who will decide whether the maximum, the minimum or something halfway between is to be applied, and whether a permissive section must be called into account. When we look at these permissive or restrictive sections, I would urge that we remember that, while in perhaps seven-tenths of the country there may be no need for this if in one-tenth of the country there are Indians whose circumstances may make that section advisable, then the section should be allowed to remain. 'Our duty then will be to watch the administration of the act.
In my own district there are amongst the Indians two major fears. There is the fear of the Indian who has reached a considerable stage of advancement that he is going to be held down and not allowed to advance any further. There is the fear of the Indian who has reached a very low stage of advancement that he is going to have advancement forced upon him, that he is going to be gradually edged out of the comfortable situation in which he finds himself-and I use -that word "comfortable" not in its literal sense- whereby he has practically no responsibilities of his own-. He has his reserve; he has his little grants; he has a government to fall back on and he does not want advancement, and in some cases he is not being encouraged to want it.
There you have two diametrically opposed situations; and it is going to be up to the administrators of the act to raise those in the lower categories so that while we have a restrictive act to protect them we shall not deter those who are more advanced from going ahead. In other words, we must not hold back those who are well ahead until those who are far behind have caught up.
Before I sit down I believe it is my duty as spokesman for the Indians in the riding of Skeena, or at least for that large part of them who are taking an interest in these matters, to express our sincere thanks to the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) generally for the patience, genuine good will and sincerity which he is bringing to the whole question of the Indian Act, and specifically for calling the conference which he called from February 28 to March 3 and discussing not just Indian problems but Indian legislation with the Indians themselves.
I want to mention one other thing, Mr. Speaker, and then I am finished. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) referred in passing to a situation which did exist, and I believe still does, in New Zealand. By his reference I do not know whether he meant to imply that we should give that matter serious consideration here; I hope not. The

matter of parliamentary representation for the Indians comes under the Dominion Elections Act and not under the Indian Act. So far as the natives of New Zealand were given the vote, they were given the right to elect four, I think it is, members at large to sit in the house of parliament representing them. That idea appealed to me some time ago and I discussed it with many of our more enlightened Indians who are still on reserves in British Columbia. They told me that is the last thing they would like to see introduced in Canada. By so doing we would by statute perpetuate a differentiation in citizenship, something which is the last thing the progressive Indian wants to see.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take part briefly in the discussion relating to the amendments to the Indian Act. This is one of the problems to which there does not seem to be any definite solution. As one other hon. member has said, regardless of what you do, there will be certain ones who will not be satisfied. The suggestions I make this afternoon are not made in a critical way at all. I put them forward as suggestions in the hope that possibly through the act or the regulations under the act there will be improvement in the relations between ourselves and the Indians, and a betterment of conditions among the various tribes and bands in the country.
I think the minister was well advised when he laid over the amendment of the act until this session of the house. All parties were given an opportunity to look into it still further and those who are interested in Indian affairs were given the opportunity to have representations made to the minister.
I happen to live near a reservation and I know a considerable number of the Indians. Last week a delegation came over to see me. They said that, as far as the Indian Act was concerned, it was applying democracy in a left-handed manner. By that they meant, "we have this forced on us." That is democracy such as the totalitarian states have. I think the minister should keep that consideration in mind in the working out of the regulations under the act.
Another interesting thing that came to my attention was the fact that in 1885 the Indians were given the franchise or the vote. That is the first time. All Indians east of the province of Manitoba were given the franchise. If you look back into history you will find that was in the days of Sir John A. Macdonald. If you go into the matter still further, you will find: that in 1898 they were denied the right to vote and that situation has continued until this day except in certain cases where Indians have been in the armed

forces. In 1898 you will recall that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in power. Those Indians who were talking to me have not forgotten that.


Walter Edward Harris: 1898.


Harry Oliver White: The minister waves his hand, but those Indians have not forgotten that. I looked the matter up in the guide and find that such is the case. In two wars they were expected to fight for the country and they did so creditably. But after they return they find that, as far as their band is concerned, they are just back where they were. That remark does not apply of course to pensions and other benefits under the veterans charter but it does apply to their status in the community. I am told that in the United States all Indians are privileged to vote in a general election.
Years ago there were disputes as to the rights of Indians freely to cross the border between the United States and Canada. I believe this was dealt with in what is referred to as the Jay treaty. But finally after many years the Indians have again been given the right to cross and recross the border freely. But some peculiar things have happened. One of them is that the Indians in my area will go across to Detroit in Michigan and secure employment; they will purchase a car which will have a Michigan licence on it. When they enter Canada, if they are not going to stay for more than a day or two, that is all right. But if they are going to stay for any length of time, they are given a permit card and they go to the reservation and are not allowed to use their car for business or pleasure while they are there. When an American tourist comes to this country, driving a United States car with a United States licence on it, he can go anywhere he likes. We welcome him for the United States dollars he brings to this country. But the Indian is not given that right.


Walter Edward Harris: He is not a tourist.


Harry Oliver White: They feel that they are discriminated against. That is what actually happens. They are actually tied up. Some of those who have spoken previously have mentioned clause 4. The hon. member for Skeena pointed out that there had to be certain restrictions and that they could not very well be removed. As with most acts, I find that the source of difficulty is not so much with the act itself but with the regulations under the act and the administration of the act. Probably much of the difficulty-I do not like to call it ill feeling-that arises between the Indians and the department arises out of the administration of the regulations under 80709-98
Indian Act
the act. You will find that in one area many difficulties arise, and in another area everything goes along smoothly. I think in many instances it comes back to the man who is in charge of the administration.
Then, again, the Indian has no recourse to law. The Indian affairs branch is judge and jury. Provision should be made so that a band of Indians should have recourse to the courts and to the laws in the disputes between the department-


Walter Edward Harris: They have always had that.


Harry Oliver White: That is not what they told me. Perhaps I was misinformed.


An hon. Member:: The wrong man told you.


Harry Oliver White: He was an
Indian, anyway. Most Indians whom I know drive old cars. They are warned to get these cars off the road because they are a menace to traffic. I think if hon. members look back ever the records of traffic accidents in Ontario they will find that Indians have an enviable record as far as traffic records are concerned. It is not always the man with the old car who is causing the accidents. It is someone with a fast car but lacking judgment who is causing the accidents. Therefore I think we should look into it a little more carefully and find out just how far we can go in telling these people what kind of a car they can drive and how old it should be. Some discretion should be used in that regard.
The hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) mentioned pensions. That is something that should be taken care of and dealt with right away. The men of this country, especially the Indians, are just as much entitled to pensions as anyone else. Then I hear that discretion is used by the department as to the other allowances that are paid to the Indians, and that they are not always paid directly to the Indians. It is left to the discretion of the superintendent as to how that money is to be disposed of. Probably that is advisable in some instances. The individual Indian has no one to whom he can go to get that corrected. He is the victim of circumstances, and therefore he feels a bit of resentment toward the department. Education along the proper lines is probably the greatest solution and the most desirable thing to have so far as the Indians are concerned.
May I point out the attitude taken and the conclusions that are arrived at by some people? The government is administering the affairs of the Indians. The delegation that came to see me wanted to know about the C.C.F. I said to them: They believe that the

Indian Act
government should own and control all the means of production. They said: If they do not control it any better than they do the Indian affairs branch, why, God forbid.


George Matheson Murray: Mr. Speaker, a good deal of light has been thrown upon the position of the Indians this afternoon, particularly by the hon. member who said that you could not make a rule to apply to Indians in one part of the country and expect it to apply to individual Indians in another part of the country. Up in the northern part of the Dominion of Canada there are Indians who today are living in a very primitive state, who are not settled down. They travel about the country. Their employment is seasonal. They fish during one season and hunt and trap during another season. Certain of those tribes are continuously on the move; therefore it would be very difficult to establish day schools, for instance, in that part of the country and expect the children to go to school as the white children do in Ontario or elsewhere with their school bags under their arms and then come home in the evening to mother to have their suppers, and so forth. You cannot make such rules in that part of the country.
And yet, in south Cariboo on the Fraser river you will find Indians well settled, tilling farms and conducting business in a very proper manner. You will find that these people have good incomes and good homes. I know of one group who grew tomatoes last season near Lillooet and received $400 per acre net profit on the production of that particular crop. I know of one settlement down on Seton lake in the south Cariboo country where the Indians have electric lights in their homes, and many of them have modern homes and live on standards quite equal to that of the whites.
How then can you make a rule that will apply to all of these people? There are some
3,000	of them in the riding which I represent. In the southern part, as I have said, many of them are prosperous. They do cattle ranching and conduct saw mills. They have co-operative activities in agriculture; they have co-operative stores; and it all comes about largely through the good management that this government has shown in that regard.
Day schools have been established. In my own lifetime I have seen these people emerge and progress and come up to a very good standard of citizenship in that part of our Cariboo country.
We hear a good deal of weeping about the sad plight of our Indians. Great sympathy is shown here and there. I often think they are crocodile tears, because the Indian does

not require so much of our commiseration, so much of our sympathy. Somebody referred to Sir John A. Macdonald, who was the prime minister of Canada, seeking an amendment to the Indian Act. At that time, in 1878, he proposed that the Indian be given the vote. Well, fortunately there were Liberals in the house at that time. One prominent Liberal rose and said:	"Mr. Speaker, if you give
them the vote they will just quit the scalping party and come over to the polling booth." At that time the Indians in the western part of the country particularly were living under very primitive conditions. They were savages in the truest sense. They engaged in tribal wars. They still held "scalping parties." In the annals of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police of the last few years there are reports of cannibalism up in the north, where people were reduced to poverty through bad weather and so forth. I was speaking to a man who was very well informed on this subject and he said that in the Fraser valley not very many years ago tribal wars were still going on; although the white man was there with his police and so forth, rival tribes fell upon each other and inflicted casualties whenever the opportunity arose.
As I say, they are emerging and have emerged in one or two generations from a condition of primitive people. To whom should the credit be given for lifting them up? I am speaking of my own part of the country. The credit must very largely be given to ministers of religion who worked so diligently with these people on the Mackenzie river, on the Peace river and on the Fraser river, to open up hospitals, schools and missions and to guide and help those people to the position in which they are today. As I have said, they are emerging very rapidly to a place of equality with the rest of the Canadian people. I regret I have heard in the house disparaging remarks regarding the part religion has played in the affairs of the Indians. I say the Christian missionaries who wept into that country rendered a great service to Canada and the world.
When I make that statement I am not limiting it to any one denomination. I think of the work of the Anglican church on the south Fraser river. I think of their opening schools such as the one at Lytton where several hundred Indians are in residence. I think of men like the late Rev. Archdeacon E. W. W. Pugh who came from Cambridge as a medical missionary, and who practically gave his life for the service of those people.
That was in the lower part of the Cariboo. Then, in the north the work was taken over by the Oblate missionaries. The history of the service given by the Oblate Fathers to the

Indian tribes is one of the most inspiring in the history of our country. It is going on today, and it has been going on for more than eighty years. Those missionaries are giving their lives in the conducting of schools and hospitals, and in the giving of other services to Indians. All this is being done without hope of reward, save the possibility of a crown of glory in the life hereafter.
Right up on the Cariboo highway at Fort Nelson only two winters ago Rev. Father Levesque, an Oblate missionary, went into the wilds to rescue an Indian family. He drove his dog team about eighty miles to bring service and help to those people. He froze his feet rendering that service and, as a result of it, is maimed for life. Such unselfish service is going on continuously in the part of the country I represent. I might state that Father Levesque is now in the Royal Canadian Air Force and, fortunately, is able to act as padre.
My mind turns to the Sisters of Religion at Williams Lake in the Cariboo, who conduct a hospital up there. These are Indian women of culture and education, and they take their places along with those doing similar work of any denomination or any racial group.
I think of Father A. G. Morice, who was up in Fraser Lake, at Stuart lake and at Fort St. James; of Father Lacombe, Father Seguin, and others like Father Mulvihill who is a missionary at Lejac today. I think of Rev. Father Patterson, O.M.I. of Lillooet, a native son of Perth county, Ontario, who is today assisting in organizing the co-operatives I mentioned, and in setting up credit unions and assisting Indians in co-operative saw mill and stores enterprises. In other words, he is assisting them in a material way as well as spiritually to attain their proper place in the life of the country.
I say that in bringing in this bill the minister is rendering a great service to Canada. Sir John A. Macdonald was not of the party to which I belong, but in his day he rendered heroic service. I see today a promising future for the minister who follows in the steps of great Canadian statesmen and now brings forward such progressive legislation for the benefit of the Indians and all the Canadian people.


Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a few moments before the bill goes to committee. I was pleased with the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) when he referred to the number of Indian people who have made a real contribution to Canadian life.
Indian Act
I see the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) in his seat. I have no doubt the minister will be well aware of one of them as an official high up in his department who has rendered a real service and is a credit to the civil service of Canada. That man, who is serving in the minister's department, is Mr. Gilbert Monture who, I know, is recognized as an authority on minerals in the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.
I am happy that the minister has given an extension of time for the discussion of the bill because, in looking over it, there are one or two points I find I should like to bring to his attention. Perhaps it might be done more effectively at this time than when the bill goes before the committee.
The minister has said that the Indians will be given control of their affairs when they demonstrate their ability to do so. To my mind this is an excellent approach to the problem. In the matter of the location of roads, the administration of estates of deceased persons, the handling of wills and matters of that kind the Indians can give valuable advice to the minister because they are familiar with local conditions.
It is true that many sections of the bill provide that, at the discretion of the minister, band councils are to be consulted. However, there are still several sections in which that provision does not appear, and where I think it should be included. Those sections lack the statutory authority which means so much to the Indian people. They know that if it is included in the act and brought into effect they will be recognized and be given the proper consideration.
At this point I should like to voice my objection to section 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(b). I believe that, upon reflection, the minister will agree that it does violate the principles of good citizenship, and that it is contrary to constitutional law.
All hon. members are familiar with the many sacrifices made by the Indians in the two great wars. I know that from the Six Nations Indians, located close to my home, there were five hundred who enlisted for active service. The records of those men compare favourably with those of others who took part in the war effort. I say the minister would be making a real contribution to the Indian people if he were to make provision whereby Indians could have a voice in the government of our country, without at the same time losing their identity and rights as Indians. We as Canadians are always deeply concerned about any infringement upon our rights and freedoms. I do feel that in all these

Indian Act
matters set out in the bill we must make sure that the Indians are given proper consideration in the affairs on which the government of our country legislates.


Mr. H. H. Hatfield (Vicloria-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that a measure is being offered to improve the conditions of Indians on reserves. I support the request of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) that a commission or a committee be set up to investigate Indian reserves throughout Canada. In my view the committee headed by the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) did good work in travelling throughout eastern Canada.
There are two Indian reservations in my constituency. Let me put on record the fact that the Indians of eastern Canada depend for relief upon a vote by this parliament. They have no treaty money, as do the Indians in western Canada. The Indians in the west are preferred, just as are the white people. They are a preferred class-as was clearly indicated when, before Easter, approval was given to the $65 million bonus to western farmers.
I should like to place on record the scale of the monthly ration for Indians on relief. Each adult Indian can receive flour to the value of $1.44 a month; rolled oats, 54 cents; baking powder, 30 cents; tea, $1; sugar, 22 cents; lard, 69 cents; beans, 50 cents; rice, 40 cents; cheese, 48 cents; and meat or fish, $1. Hon. members all know what one dollar will buy by way of meat or fish in a month's time. Then he is allowed ten cents' worth of salt and ten cents' worth of matches. That is all one Indian adult is allowed for a month, and it comes to $6.77. Two adult Indians are allowed $11.11 for a month. Three adult Indians are allowed $14.30. Four adult Indians are allowed $16.76. Five adult Indians are allowed $19.09. Six adult Indians are allowed $22.54, and nine, adult Indians are allowed $34.30 per month. You will notice that in this ration there are no vegetables of any kind.


An hon. Member:: No potatoes.


Heber Harold Hatfield: There is no butter, milk or eggs. In my constituency there are lots of potatoes that are selling cheaply. There were a great many Indians on relief in that reserve a year ago. They were out of work. Many young returned veterans could not get work. Potatoes were cheap. They could be bought for 50 cents a bag of 75 pounds. Yet the agent was not allowed to give them a potato. One adult Indian could buy 40 cents' worth of rice for a month's time, but he was not allowed to have potatoes. Children were not allowed to have milk, eggs or butter. I think

the scale of monthly rations issued in Ottawa by the superintendent of welfare and training is disgraceful. It should be revised.
The Indian chief advised me that a sick Indian on his reserve, Simon Paul, had six children and is only allowed $16 per month to feed his wife and the six small children. I consider that is a disgrace. I would ask the minister to look into the question of the ration allowed Indians in eastern Canada. The answer I was given by the superintendent of welfare and training was that the Indians were supposed to grow their own vegetables. They have land on the reserve but very few of them put in a garden. If they are on relief they are not supplied with seed to grow their own vegetables, and I think they should be. When there is a large reserve with plenty of land they should be helped. A man experienced in agriculture should be put in charge of the land and the Indians should be shown how to grow their own vegetables. They should be able to grow enough vegetables on this reserve to feed all the Indians, and vegetables are the cheapest and best food that they can use.
I would impress upon the minister that he should have the regulations changed, and that on large reserves someone should be in charge of agriculture. Someone should teach the young Indians how to put in gardens and how to grow enough vegetables for their own use. I hope the amended act will be an improvement. I still submit that there should be a committee or commission to travel throughout the country looking into these different matters on the reserves.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, since the principle of the measure before the house is what is under discussion, I think it is appropriate to say something about the principle which is really inherent in what we are now discussing. Complimentary things have been said about the approach that has been made to this subject. To the extent that we accept the continuance of the present relationship between our native Indian population and the rest of the Canadian people, the statement of the minister was a commendable expression of friendship toward the descendants of the original citizens of the area that is now Canada. He indicated a desire to meet them, to hear their point of view and to improve the law now in force.
It seems to me, however, that we should have something more in mind. In so far as one can establish a principle under discussion at the moment, that principle is that we shall continue the existing relationship of the Indian to the state. In many ways the bill represents an improvement both in the

approach to the problem of the Indian and in the administrative procedure that will be brought into effect, subject to the reservation that I think section 4 is a most improper one having regard to what can be done thereunder no matter what the minister may intend to do. Nevertheless it seems to me that there is something lacking in our approach to this subject, and that it is something not only of concern to the native Indian population but also of very great concern to every Canadian who believes in the principles of individual freedom which we are asserting so continually at this particular time.
I do not think that we have any right to be satisfied with the bill. When I say that I am not suggesting that the bill may not be a great improvement over the legislation now on the statute books. What I am suggesting is that every one of us as a Canadian should feel much less than satisfied that at this point in the history of Canada we should still be dealing with a very large number of people in this country as a people with less than the regular rights of citizenship. Surely, if we are going to join in declarations that every individual throughout the world has the right to equality the place for us to start that discussion is right here at home. If it is wise for us to urge the extension of equality to the peoples of other lands, let us in this parliament assert that principle in dealing with the descendants of the original citizens of the country that we are trying to build and advance in every way within our power.
I do not believe that we should be satisfied until we can say with conviction that every Indian child has the same chance of education and advancement as every other Canadian child. Surely no one will suggest that with the passing of the bill now before us or even with such improvements as may emerge by way of amendment, with its present form and structure, we shall have even approached a point where we can declare that we have extended to the young children of native Indian blood that measure of equality which is the hall-mark of democracy itself.
Surely what we should ask ourselves is not whether it is advancing the cause of the Indians in Canada, but whether we as Canadians are satisfied to have from 130,000 to
140,000	people continuing to live in this country with less than the basic rights of citizenship which we have joined in declaring through the United Nations to be the right of human beings everywhere. In saying this I am questioning neither the motives nor the attitude of the minister towards those people with whom this legislation will deal. The drafting of the act will depend upon how we approach this subject. From the fact that
Indian Act
this bill has been presented as a government measure and will now be referred to a committee, with whatever improvement may be made there, it is obvious that what is under contemplation is a measure that perpetuates a situation which should not be satisfactory to any Canadian today. In giving this bill second reading and referring it to a committee where further discussion may take place and improvements may be made, I do hope there will be in the minds of the members of this house the hope that before long we shall achieve that measure of advancement in regard to this matter which will bring the Indians fully within the citizenship of Canada.
There is nothing in the mind of any young Indian which prevents him from absorbing education and becoming successful in this country. We have seen evidence, which has been referred to already, of the great success of educated Indians in the ordinary professional and other activities of this country. There are many examples of great achievements in the peaceful occupations of Canada. And we should remember that during the years of war the Indians of this country did their full share in preserving that freedom which should be their heritage as well as the heritage of every Canadian. They showed themselves gallant and skilled on the field of battle. They showed themselves responsible and reliable. The Indians themselves have demonstrated that if we lay the foundation for full citizenship they will be worthy of the opportunity we give them.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Walter Edward Harris: If I have unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions I should like to move:
That a special committee be appointed to consider Bill No. 79, an act respecting Indians, with power to send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time; and that the committee consist of members to be appointed later, and that standing order 65(1) be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Walter Edward Harris: That Bill No. 79, an act respecting Indians, be referred to the special committee appointed to consider the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Alphonse Fournier: the second reading of Bill No. 148, respecting the construction and

Northwest Territories Act maintenance of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river at or near the town of Valley-field, in the province of Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to increase the number of members of the Yukon territorial council from three to five.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Winters thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 188, to amend the Yukon Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT


Robert Henry Winters: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide elected representation in the territorial government for the population of the Northwest Territories and to give the governor in council power to appoint judicial officers for the said territories.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, since 1905 the Northwest Territories have been administered by a commissioner appointed by the governor in council, acting on instructions from time to time given to him by the governor in council or the minister. The Northwest Territories Act now provides for a council of six members to aid the commissioner in the administration of the territories. All the members are appointed by the governor in council. This is the form of government that has existed since 1921.
With the increase in population and the development of the territories, it is considered that there should be some elected representa-

fives in the council. It is intended, therefore, to enlarge the council to eight members, of whom three shall be elected and five appointed. Provisions are contained in the bill to authorize the establishment of three electoral districts to be represented by three elected members. There are several other minor amendments in the bill, the most important one being the granting of authority for the appointment of sheriffs.


Mr. J. A. Simmons (Yukon-Mackenzie River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity of saying a few words in support of the bill which will be introduced. For administration purposes the Northwest Territories were divided into three districts, namely, Mackenzie, Keewatin and Franklin, by order in council of March 16, 1918. In accordance with the Northwest Territories Act, the Northwest Territories are governed by a commissioner, a deputy commissioner, and five councillors appointed by the governor in council and operating from Ottawa. The commissioner and council have power to make ordinances for the government of the territory under instructions from the governor in council or the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters), subject to any act of the parliament of Canada applying to the territories.
Prior to confederation the land now known as the Northwest Territories was governed by the Hudson's Bay Company, and it was transferred to Canada on July 15, 1870. Upon the creation of the province of Manitoba in 1870, a single lieutenant governor performed the offices of the crown for the province and exercised a personal rule over the Northwest Territories under the direction of the federal government. He was assisted in the administration of the territories by a council not exceeding fifteen nor less than seven persons appointed by order in council. The Northwest Territories Act of 1875 provided for the administration of the territories by a resident lieutenant governor, assisted by a council of not more than five persons appointed by the governor in council, and all other members elected according to population. There were many changes in the form and size of the Northwest Territories council or legislative assembly in the succeeding years leading up to the creation of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1905.
During the years 1876 and 1877 the seat of government was at Livingston on Swan river. The capital was then transferred to Battle-ford where it remained until 1882, when Regina became the capital and remained so until the creation of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1905. Following that,

the capital was transferred to Ottawa, Since 1905 the territories have been administered by a commissioner acting under instructions of the governor in council or the Department of Resources and Development, or its preceding departments.
The commissioner has been aided by a council which, up to 1921, did not exceed four persons, and which since 1921 has not exceeded six persons. It will be noted that the Northwest Territories has been governed since 1905 by a commissioner, who was aided by a body of appointed councillors, situated at Ottawa. The great proportion of these councillors have been civil servants. No matter how able and sincere these councillors have been, this form of government is not democratic. Can you imagine eastern Ontario being governed by an appointed body of men residing and meeting on Vancouver island?
Our people feel that, while the present administrations are good and composed of able and conscientious men, the council is not in a position to deal with many of the problems of the territories as well as a similar body of elected members resident in the territories, and that in the very near future we should have responsible government throughout in keeping with the Canadian tradition of responsible government. It is admitted that the revenue found in the Northwest Territories has not been sufficient to defray the expenses of government, and the population has not been large enough to carry the cost of governmental machinery. For many years the population consisted predominantly of nomadic Indians and Eskimos, who made their living by hunting and trapping.
Since the 1920's, and especially since the end of world war II, there has been a considerable change in the situation. Industry and mining have moved into the territories, and I venture to say that many more will be moving in within the next few years to develop the vast mineral resources which are being discovered almost every day. There are the oil fields at Norman Wells along the Mackenzie river; the rich gold mines in the Yellowknife district; the uranium mine at Eldorado on Great Bear lake; the rich lead deposits at Pine Point on the south side of Great Slave lake, which I am hoping will lead to the construction of a railway; hydro developments at Fort Smith; and the nickel find at Ferguson lake in the Keewatin district. On Great Slave lake there is one of the largest inland fisheries in the world, resulting in a population of approximately 1,500 at Hay river. All this development has meant a large increase in population in the Mackenzie district.
Northwest Territories Act
It is about time that these Canadians were granted a form of local self-government similar to that enjoyed by Canadians in other parts of our country, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will agree that the present form of appointed members to the Northwest Territories council can never be as good and efficient as local self-government. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) on introducing this bill. It is a move in the right direction towards giving complete local self-government to these people, which is the basis of our form of democracy.
I hope it will not be long before the people of the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories are governed in local matters by a wholly elected council which will meet in the territory, and which will consist of people who live in the territory, make their living there, and who have the interest and future of the territory at heart. This form of local self-government has worked well in the Yukon Territory for the last fifty years and more. For the life of me, I cannot see why it will not work as well in the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories.


George Alexander Drew: Before the motion is dealt with, Mr. Speaker, there are one or two questions I should like to ask. I recognize that this matter can be dealt with effectively when the bill itself is before the house, but it seems to me that in dealing with this motion at the present time it might be desirable to have an explanation as to how the elected representatives are to be chosen and whether it is to be for limited areas or for the whole area of the Northwest Territories. The reason I raise that question is this. If it is to be for a limited area based upon a concentration of population, then we would have a system of election related to population on the one hand and on the other a system of appointment related to a recognition of the difficulty of getting an expression of opinion of the members. I think it would be helpful if we had some indication as to that at this stage.


Robert Henry Winters: I made a statement. I cannot speak again until we go into committee.


Alphonse Fournier: The minister could
close the debate on the motion or he could answer the questions when we get into committee.


George Alexander Drew: The only reason I was raising the point is this. It would indicate to us the basis upon which we were proceeding. Then when the bill came in we would have an idea of the basis on which it had been prepared in that respect.

Northwest Territories Act


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps in the committee stage on the resolution I could answer those questions, as the house leader suggested.


George Alexander Drew: In the committee stage of the resolution?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: That would be satisfactory.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Robert Henry Winters: Perhaps I should first of all answer the questions asked by the leader of the opposition with respect to the contemplated method of having representation in the Northwest Territories. It is proposed to divide the Northwest Territories into three electoral districts centered about the centres of population at Norman Wells, at Yellowknife and Hay River. That would result in three general electoral districts, one with a boundary running north and south somewhere along the Mackenzie river; the others divided by a boundary running east and west somewhere between Yellowknife and Hay River, thereby using those three main concentrations of population as the general centres of the electoral districts that are being contemplated.


George Matheson Murray: May I ask the
minister if this does not indicate that a new province shall soon be evolved in the Northwest Territories, as Alberta was in 1905? Within these Northwest Territories there is a great deal of opinion to the effect that it is about time that a new province was created in northern Canada.


Robert Henry Winters: Time effects a great many changes. The present resolution forecasts a bill which has regard to the growth of the Northwest Territories. It is the opinion of the government that the time has come to recognize that growth and to give to the people of the Northwest Territories some elected representation in the Northwest Territories council.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: From the
speech of a member who spoke previously, I understand that we now have a commissioner with a council of eight; and if I rightly understood the matter, the commissioner is in the district itself. No, he is here also. They are all here.


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It is proposed to do something which does not immediately make itself clear to me; that is to say, we are going to introduce self-government or at any rate make a step towards self-government by having three out of eight elected. How is the matter going to function? There
IMr. Drew,]

will still be a commissioner, five members here in Ottawa and three elected in the territories. Will that be correct?
Mr. V/inters: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister say how that set-up will function? Will we have a parliament of the Northwest Territories sitting here in Ottawa? Will they come here? While I am on my feet, let me ask this question also. I can understand a selected group of eight, and I could understand an elected group of eight; I think also I could partly understand a group of eight, of which five might be elected. But I find it difficult to understand just what reality there is given to the principle of self-government by having three out of eight elected when those three will be several thousand miles away from Ottawa where, I would judge, the decisions will still be made.


Robert Henry Winters: The present constitution of the council is six members, one of whom is appointed as a resident of the Northwest Territories. It is proposed to increase the number to eight and to have three from the Northwest Territories, those three being elected. The remaining members will be appointed and it is likely that they will be from Ottawa as they are now; that is, prominent civil servants. At the present time the commission meets in Ottawa and the business of the government of the Northwest Territories is transacted here in Ottawa. By the bill which will be introduced later it is contemplated to have at least one meeting each year of the Northwest Territories council held in the Northwest Territories; this should have some advantages which I am sure are evident to all hon. members.


George Matheson Murray: May I ask the minister how long he thinks it will take before it will be possible to have a body similar to the present Yukon council; that is, add to the membership of it and bring it abreast of the Yukon council?


Robert Henry Winters: That is something that will depend entirely upon developments and the growth of the Northwest Territories. It is something as to which I would not care to make any predictions at this time.


James Aubrey Simmons: Is it the intention of the government to increase the number of the elected members of the council from year to year until such time as they eventually reach the stage of fully elected government similar to the Yukon Territory?


Robert Henry Winters: The whole purpose of this legislation is to tend toward elected representation. I would say that as the territories grow and develop, the trend in that direc-

tion will continue. Just when there will be a fully elected government in the Northwest Territories is something that will have to wait on the development of the territories.


George Matheson Murray: It has been Liberal policy to set up self-governing groups of this kind. The government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier of course proposed the creation of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and in 1905 that proposal was carried out. But it was only incidental to a general policy of settlement and development of the west. Sir Wilfrid, with his able lieutenant, Sir Clifford Sifton, who was at that time the minister of the department which dealt with matters now under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Resources and Development, outlined a big immigration policy. People were invited to come into the northwest to take the free land that was offered them and to share in the opportunities of that great country. The Liberals carried out that policy. But of recent years there has been a hesitancy about bringing in new people. Up in that country to which we are referring now there is opportunity for a great many new settlements all over the place, and it is a matter not only of local but of national interest-and of even international interest -that we should invite people to come into that country to settle and to share in the opportunities which were so ably outlined by the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River.
The oil resources there are very wide; their limits are unknown, and yet the oil at Norman Wells is not being used today save on the river for local consumption. Then there is the fact that we have the greatest uranium deposits in the world there; there are great resources of gold at Yellowknife and elsewhere, and there are large areas of timber, and fish, and everything that an empire needs. And yet in the Northwest Territories we have a very scattered population. I hope to see something done about putting new population in there and creating in the north a province similar to Alberta. I would prophesy that such a province some day would be wealthier than any of the other ten provinces of Canada.


Mr. Knight:: The administration at the moment is in the hands of a council of which only one member is a resident of the territories, as I understood the minister. That would mean, I presume, that he lives at Ottawa to carry on his business. Does he travel back and forth as a member of parliament does? Is the council made up of a majority of non-residents; that is to say, roughly, top civil servants, who live in Ottawa? There must be advisers or an
Northwest Territories Act advisory committee of residents. Can the minister tell me whether he has such an advisory committee? If so, of whom does it consist? How is it appointed?


Robert Henry Winters: The member of the Northwest Territories council, appointed from the Northwest Territories, resides in the Northwest Territories and he travels here to Ottawa for meetings of the commission. There is no advisory committee as such.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: In that case this council whose members are resident in Ottawa must have advice from local people in the territory, whether there is an official advisory committee or not. Otherwise, how could they administer a country from which they have no advisers? Is there any regular advice, not official advisers, I mean, as individuals?


Robert Henry Winters: We have of course a- very good elected representative from the Northwest Territories and the Yukon sitting in the house at the present time, namely, the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River, with whom I had the privilege of touring the greater part of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon last summer. There is, moreover, a very capable body of civil servants, many of whom spend their full time in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, and who, of course, provide the council with information on various subjects from time to time.


Mr. Fraser:: How long will these three people be elected for, for one year, two years or three years? What is the term, or does it vary?


Robert Henry Winters: That is covered in the bill. I have not the bill before me, but speaking from memory now, the period is for three years.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have two more questions. What is the population of the territories now? Have the members of the council who reside in Ottawa had experience of that area from living there, or do they have to be briefed-may I put it that way- by civil servants who are there now? In other words, have we in Ottawa people who in the course of their career have acquired knowledge of that territory?


Robert Henry Winters: There are on the commission people who have acquired knowledge by virtue of the fact that they have lived in the north, and there are others who, I presume, have to be briefed, as the hon. member has said.
The population of the Northwest Territories at the present time, based on an estimate, is about 15,500 people. That is only an estimate. The last census in 1941 showed a population of 12,028.
1542

Export and Import Permits Act


George Matheson Murray: May I refer to the great investment that the people of Canada already have there? The Alaska highway penetrates the northern country. It is an excellent highway. It is really an international highway. There are airfields which were constructed, of course, under the defence plan. Very valuable airfields exist there and are available for civilian use. Extensive telegraph lines have been constructed throughout the north. Alaska, our neighbour, being under the United States flag, of course, is now considering statehood. They are to be brought into the American union as the forty-ninth state. Alaska is a very great hive of industry. Settlers are coming in there over the Alaska highway. The place is being developed. Extensive defensive measures are being developed there, of course. The attitude of the United States is to develop Alaska, to develop her industries, her timber, her fisheries, her mines and so forth. Therefore we Canadians should be abreast of our United States friends and see that this northwest country is not neglected, but that everything is done to parallel what is being done in Alaska in promoting settlement and prosperity in that part of America.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Winters thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 189, to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS


[Stage Direction]
July 31, 1954
Alphonse Fournier: the second reading of Bill No. 130, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is the parliamentary assistant
going to make a statement?


George James McIlraith: Yes, as soon as he has an opportunity.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That remark is unnecessary.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the house is comparatively simple, but since, among other things, it provides for the extension of the life of the Export and Import Permits Act, perhaps it would be appropriate for me, and the house would wish me, to say


a few words about that act, and to give some information with respect to it and to the operations under it, as well as to deal with the provisions of the bill itself.
Hon. members will recall that export control was established under the authority of the War Measures Act in 1941, and with the ending of the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act legislation was brought forward in 1947 and the Export and Import Permits Act was passed in that year, having at that time a provision in the act itself for termination in 1948. In 1948 the bill was amended and the life of the act was extended until 1950. In 1949 the life of the act was again extended until July 31, 1951, so that the present act would expire on July 31, 1951, unless extended. During all this period a continuing effort was maintained to remove items from control as quickly as the necessity for their control disappeared. At the end of the war there were 1,100 items under export control.
By October, 1950, this number had been reduced to 82 items. Unfortunately however since that time it has been necessary again to place certain items under export control. This has been by reason of the well known developments on the international scene. It was done both for domestic supply reasons within Canada and also for the reason that it was desirable to prevent this country's serving as a back door for exports from the United States. As hon. members know, there is a free flow of material from the United States to Canada, and it was necessary to prevent that freedom being used as an indirect method of exporting United States goods from that country contrary to their export control legislation.
Commodities fall within three broad classifications for export control purposes. The first list covers items under control for all destinations and includes all items on which it is necessary to restrict or deny movement to the United States to maintain adequate domestic supply within Canada. It will be appreciated that in the type of article affected, such as scrap materials, it could easily happen that this Canadian market could be denuded if export controls were not maintained against the United States as well as all other countries.
List No. 2 is a list of items under export control to destinations other than the United States, and comprises those items which may be in short supply, and also a large number of strategic materials. Commodities within this group may move freely between Canada and the United States, but they cannot be exported without licence to other destinations from either country. An illustration of this

might be raw cotton, which moves from the United States to Canada without restriction, but which the United States and Canada have under export control to other destinations.
The third list is a list of countries exports to which require permits, or to which there is a general control of exports required. It is true that there is a very small list of items for export to these countries that is exempt. However, that list is quite small, and the items in it have no strategic significance whatever. This area control at present affects exports only, and does not affect imports.
The export powers under the existing act may be summarized under four headings. Those four headings are:
(a)	To establish a list of countries, exports to which shall be subject to licence.
(b)	To control exports of arms, munitions, war materials or supplies.
(c)	To control exports of commodities where this is necessary to ensure adequate supply and distribution within Canada, and
(d)	To control exports where this is necessary to implement inter-governmental arrangements or commitments.
So much for the exports part of the existing legislation.
Then, as to imports: When the act was passed initially in 1947, there were one hundred items under import control. These had been reduced to the point where at the end of 1950 no items were left under import control. Since the first of the year it has been necessary again to bring some items under import control. These are basic steel products on which control was imposed in order to direct the flow of imported steel into essential uses in compliance with the minister's orders issued under the Essential Materials (Defence) Act.
The authority or powers under the existing act, as they affect imports, may be subdivided into two headings:
(a)	To regulate or control the import of commodities subject to allocation by intergovernmental arrangement, governmental controls in the country of origin or scarcity in the world markets, and
(b)	To control imports where the price of the commodity is supported within the Canadian, market, under existing legislation.
The purpose of the amendments in the bill before the house may be set out briefly under three subheadings. The first is to extend the life of the act for three years, until July 31, 1954. I may add that a provision in that respect in the bill as originally drafted and submitted to parliament made provision for extension for five years. In the other place 80709-99i
2,	1951
Export and Import Permits Act that was reduced to three years, and the bill now before the house makes provision for an extension for three years.
Secondly, the bill empowers the governor in council to establish a list of countries, imports from which may be controlled, in order to enable Canada to implement obligations which may be incurred through international action. Hon. members will recall how some months ago there was discussion of international action which would affect imports as well as exports. We had no authority under any existing legislation to implement such a policy, had we agreed to it or had there been any international action making it desirable or necessary.
Then the third authority set out in the bill is that for imposing import controls where the production, supply, distribution or use of the article is restricted or otherwise regulated under the authority of any act of parliament. As an illustration, if it becomes necessary to regulate or prohibit the manufacture or distribution of certain products, it will be apparent to hon. members that it would be desirable to be able to exercise a similar control over an import trade in the same products. That can arise as the defence preparedness program accelerates in pace.
While the bill before the house is brief, and while, with the exception of the last point mentioned, it involves no new principle, perhaps I could supply any additional information required when we are in committee. If it is required, I shall be glad to give it.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make some comments about this bill to amend the Export and Import Permits Act. Here we have another control measure which is being placed before us because of the situation in which we find ourselves. This measure is really ancillary to the broader measures which we have already had before us during this session. It represents a considerable extension of the measure which we have had on the statute books under the same name since 1947, in particular because this bill now asks for authority to control imports on a country basis as well as on a commodity basis. As I say, it is a bill involving a great extension and before I take my seat I propose to move an amendment that the bill be sent to a committee so that its effect may be studied. I

Export and Import Permits Act suggest that the extensions which are being made are of great importance. When the act was made law four years ago it was considered carefully by a committee.
One of the things to which I wish to draw particular attention is that this measure has been used-I think it is desirable that we should know whether it is proposed to be used again-for purposes of discrimination. Let me hasten to say that I do not use that word in any sinister sense at all. I merely mean that the control powers have been used, as I shall show in a minute, to enable controllers to determine that Manufacturer A is more worthy of getting import materials than Manufacturer B. That is one reason why I think it is desirable that this measure should go to a committee. Then that aspect of the matter can be considered.
In order to make clear what I mean by that I should like to read briefly from the proceedings of the banking and commerce committee of 1947 when this act was first considered. What I am proposing to show is what I indicated a moment ago, that the powers have been used for the purposes of discriminating and judging that this manufacturer is more worthy of getting material than that manufacturer. Lest I forget, let me say that the civil servants who came before that committee won the respect and admiration of us all. It was perfectly evident that they were trying to do their job in a faithful and efficient manner. I am not criticizing them; rather I am criticizing the whole conception that these powers are being put in the hands of people, I do not care how good they are.
During the course of the evidence given by Mr. Bull the question of bench vises came up. I quote from the evidence given by Mr. Bull, as reported on page 295 of the proceedings:
On this question of bench vises, applications have been turned down on bench vises fairly generally because the bench vise is an article of very simple manufacture.
Then later on:
There is a minimum amount of machining going into a bench vise so that the price, on export, is not a great deal more than the price of the raw steel going into it. These vises are going to Holland where we never sold bench vises in the past and it is very doubtful if we will ever sell them in the future. We have difficulty competing in an article of simple manufacture. We usually do much better in a complex piece, such as a generator or a motor.
That outlines briefly the situation I am drawing attention to. I asked a question regarding it and then later Mr. Mackenzie, the deputy minister, made a statement which covered the point in a rather comprehensive manner. I quote from page 296 as follows:


Mr. Mackenzie:: May I say a word? I am speaking now not of any particular item but I am talking
(Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood).]
of the general policy of those unfortunate people who have to administer export permits. Where we have a very small supply to meet a large demand we have to make some decision and some choice because everybody's demands cannot be met. One of the guiding principles is that token shipments should go to those markets where it appears that there will be some continuing value. Mr. Bull pointed out that In the case of these items which require a very small amount of manufacturing in Canada, and are only one degree removed from the raw material, it is highly improbable that under more normal conditions, if those ever come, that we will be able to compete with manufacturers much closer to the markets. Under circumstances like that we would deliberately use our influence-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Power, not influence.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: -to try to direct what limited supply there was to the markets where we thought there was some advantage.
I bring that before the house to indicate how powers taken for the purpose of controlling quantities can easily be used-I am perfectly sure in good faith-for the purpose of discriminating between one person and another. I hope that we can pursue this matter further when we get into committee because it seems to me to be dangerous in the highest degree that anyone should be asked to undertake the responsibility of making such a decision. The parliamentary assistant pointed out to us this afternoon what was satisfactory to hear, that the items under control under the old act had sunk to a very small number. But with the situation that has recently developed and our need for defence preparations, the number of articles under control will rise and have risen very substantially.
We should remember that we may be stepping into legislation which may go on for years and years. I suppose the best hope we can have is that it will go on for years and years because the alternative probably is war. When we remember that, it seems to me that these things should be carefully considered. I say again that this is discrimination, whether it is beneficial discrimination or not. Apparently we are giving the power to government officials to determine as between one person and another. They will have to have wisdom which I suggest is beyond all human wisdom. In addition they will have to be absolutely detached and impartial.
I should like to say a word or two about the public aspect of this. Do not think I deceive myself into believing that there is as yet any real apprehension on the part of the public as to the wide powers which parliament has granted. However, we in the opposition have questioned these powers because we consider it to be our duty to do so. I consider it to be my duty to go on trying to make people realize just what is happening, because it makes a very great deal

of difference whether the public says to itself, "These arbitrary powers are things we do not like; nevertheless the situation is such that we must give them. But we will watch exactly how they are exercised, and we will be on guard to try to diminish them as soon as the situation warrants." That is one thing, but that is not the situation we have in this country at the moment, as far as I can see. There is very little evidence 1 can detect outside this house, and not very much inside it, to suggest that anyone fears these powers. Therefore I am going to take a few moments of the time of the house to stress this point and put on record one or two quotations from people who have thought deeply about these matters, in the hope that they may come to the attention of members of the public, perhaps leaders of public opinion, who may be impelled to do something about it.
When I say that, I recognize that broad powers have to be given at the moment. Without them we cannot meet the issues we are facing now. What I am hoping is that they can be given in a considered way, so that people will recognize that it is a dangerous thing to do, and it is only done when you are in danger so great that you have to give up liberties-temporarily, we hope

which have cost much in the winning. For that reason I propose to quote a sentence or two from a man whose name is very well known and whose opinions are highly regarded. I refer to Walter Lippmann, and I am quoting from page 332 of his book "The Good Society". He is speaking about arbitrary powers, and we must remember that these powers are arbitrary. Although the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said the other day, and I am sure sincerely, that these great and arbitrary powers would be used with moderation, nevertheless we should remind ourselves that even in the hands of good men powers are sometimes used for purposes for which they were not intended. It was not the wicked Hitler who began the use of arbitrary power in governing by decree in Germany; it was the good Briining who began it. He was driven into it not because he wanted to but because he felt the circumstances warranted it, so it was he who really destroyed the German constitution, though he was a good and well-meaning man. Now I quote briefly from Lippmann:
The idea of arbitrary power exercised at the wilful discretion of any man is alien to the very conception of a civilized society. It is the legalism of the barbarian, and the instinctive political1 philosophy of all who have not been disciplined to, or are in reaction against, the usages of civilization. For every man, until he has been taught differently, is predisposed to believe that what he wills should have the force of law.
2, 1951	1545
Export and Import Permits Act
The struggle to subdue this primitive disposition is the age-old struggle against the barbarian.
I quote this passage from Lippmann, as I said, because of my feeling that it is our duty to try to make the people understand what is going on, so they will realize that the powers being given are far-reaching and could easily be very dangerous and harmful. I wish now to quote briefly from "The New Despotism" by Lord Hewart. At page 150 he quotes from a speech by the Master of the Rolls, who said that-
-time was when the great danger against which the judicature had to guard was the encroachments of the crown. Happily there was no longer that danger; but there was another danger which was more real than that-namely, encroachment by the executive.
As 1 say, I am bringing this to the attention of the house in order to get it on the record and call it to the attention of the people who also, I hope, may be led to reflect on these matters. Now I want to read just one other short passage from Lord Hewart, where he speaks about the delegation of authority and the position of the official who is endowed with these powers and exercises them. He says:
More than that, it is his duty, as an official, to obey any instructions given him by his superiors, and, in the absence of special instructions, to further what he knows to be the policy of his department. His position makes it inevitable that he should be subject to political influences.
I do not think the writer means that the official himself will be directly subject to political influences. I think he means that you have this power in the hands of a minister; men being what they are, the minister is a politician, and in that way political influences are bound to come in.
As I pointed out in the case of a similar measure, if this power was being asked for a month, a year, or any short time, one would feel quite differently about it; but none of us believes that three years from now, when this measure comes up for renewal, there will not be the slightest chance of taking the legislation off the statute books, unless the situation has changed radically. Therefore I think it is proper and indeed inescapable that we should think about this in terms of something that may go on for many years, and which may become part of the whole fabric of special powers that we have constructed. When I imagine that going on for such a period of time it is almost impossible for me, at any rate, to believe that we will have a generation which even knows how to practise the arts of freedom, and I am speaking now about freedom in the realm of economic enterprise.
I do not think I need detain the house longer. For the reasons I have given I move,

Export and Import Permits Act seconded by the hon. member tor Wentworth (Mr. Lennard):
That the said bill be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce, with instructions that they have power to review the administration of export and import permits since May 14, 1947, and to consider and report to this house upon the scope of amending legislation sufficient and appropriate to provide for necessary import and export restrictions.
As I said in my opening remarks, I feel that the additional scope given this legislation in the bill now before us is of such importance that it would warrant consideration by a committee just as fully as consideration was warranted some four years ago, when the original bill came before us. I suggest the obvious advantage of such a committee is that we could make it available to interested citizens if there were any who wished to come and have the matter discussed. That is what was done four years ago, and it is for that reason I have moved the amendment.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I think I should say something on this amendment. I must say I found a little difficulty in understanding the hon. member, for the reason that his remarks seemed to be directed to the desirability of having a committee, particularly the banking and commerce committee, look at the bill before the house, while the motion is in fact a repudiation of the bill. The motion as I have it is that the bill be not now read the second time, and it goes on to refer the subject matter to a committee. As I understood the remarks, there was an expression of the dislike for controls as such. I believe that dislike is widespread throughout Canada, and I believe on all sides of the house. There is common ground on that point.
The question of the principle in the bill is limited pretty well to the wisdom of its extending the Export and Import Permits Act for three years. The other questions, as to the language of the clauses and the proposed amendments, are proper subject matters for a committee, either of the whole house or the banking and commerce committee, as the case may be. In my opening remarks I did not indicate whether or not it was proposed to proceed in the committee of the whole or whether there would be a motion following the second reading to refer the bill to the banking and commerce committee. On the latter ground, of course, there is no objection whatever to having the bill referred to the banking and commerce committee, if it is thought by hon. members that is a more desirable way of examining the details of the bill. As I see it, however, there is
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) .1

every objection to repudiating the principle of the bill, and that is what is contained in the amendment moved by the hon. member. I therefore see no alternative but to oppose the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the amendment please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the amendment lost.
Amendment (Mr. Macdonnell, Greenwood) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the motion for second reading.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Establishment and publication of list of goods for export.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
parliamentary assistant give us a little more information than he gave this afternoon about the articles that are likely to come under control?


George James McIlraith: As I stated on second reading of the bill, we had no items under import control at the end of December. Since that time we have had to bring iron and steel items under import control, but that is the only item under import control at the present time. It is impossible to say with any degree of accuracy what items are likely to be brought under import control. There may be other metals of a similar nature, but there is nothing immediately contemplated. I do not want to be held too strictly to that commitment because the situation, so far as strategic metals are concerned, is changing rapidly. There is always a possibility of a change taking place.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
assistant explain further subsection 2 of clause 1 which is described in the sidenote as necessary to enable Canada to implement possible action by the United Nations organization.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps I could best elaborate on that by using an illustration. It will be recalled that some months ago when the whole Korean operation was being discussed at the United Nations, the wisdom of applying import controls

against certain countries was then discussed. In this country we were in the position that had such a resolution been thought desirable and carried by the United Nations, there was no legislative machinery to provide for anything in the nature of area import controls. It is that type of situation that is envisaged. There is no intention at all of applying area import controls at this time, but again the world situation changes fairly rapidly.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would that be more in the nature of political sanctions than economic measures?


George James McIlraith: To a limited extent it would be, yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Could the assistant say anything concerning the point which I raised as to the previous operation of the control? I refer now to the evidence which I read from the banking and commerce committee of several years ago.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, 1 think the explanation of that is somewhat difficult, because by its very nature any control involves at least discrimination in an academic sense. If you create a list of products for which an export permit is required under control legislation, then you have discriminated against the producers of those products. Unfortunately, in control legislation discrimination is involved in that academic sense. I believe the thing that has to be watched for is discrimination that is not of that academic nature, but discrimination between individuals of equal claim. I do not think there has been any suggestion of discrimination of that kind in the years that this control has been in operation. I do not think anyone on any side of the house has suggested discrimination as between individuals under this legislation.
There is, of course, and the hon. member quite properly raises the point, an authority that is arbitrary in its nature. I believe the only effective answer to that is that no one has yet come forward with another method of handling such a difficulty. Academically there is no doubt that there is authority for a discriminatory use of the power.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: But in the sense that I was putting it to the assistant, he will agree that there was discrimination because officials decided that material given to one manufacturer was more likely to be nationally useful than that given to another because his business was more likely to continue. Can the assistant say whether that kind of judgment will continue to be exercised? It does not seem to be necessarily inherent in the kind of control that we are talking about. There are other things which
2. 1951
Export and Import Permits Act could be used as yardsticks, such as the history of the business and so on. Probably the assistant is more familiar with those than I am. What I do want to know is, are we going to have a continuation of the exercise of that judgment that one business shall have steel because it is more likely to be able to continue than another business?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, that type of discrimination is what we are constantly seeking to avoid. We are constantly seeking to avoid having the administrative officials in such a position, because it is unfair to them as well as to all others. I cannot say dogmatically that such authority will not ever be used, because in the very example used as a reference we are concerned with the production of a steel product. Steel is in extremely short supply and if export permits are granted I presume there will have to be an examination not only into where the steel is ultimately going but into the quantities involved and the value of the market; that is, the value from the point of view of maintaining the market for old customers. For instance, we had to keep supplying a few nails to the West Indies when we were short of them in this country. We certainly did not seek to export nails, because of the great shortage of wire rod and so on. It is quite true there is discrimination in favour of exporters exporting some nails to the West Indies, but that discrimination was exercised because that had been a traditional outlet and we had supplied that market with nails over a great number of years. I think all hon. members will agree that the only fair thing to do when we had kept that market supplied for a great number of years was to continue to keep it at least partially supplied. That of course involved discrimination against other exporters who might want to export another steel product to some other country.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Another
question which was raised at the same time in the committee and which I did not read was a question raised by another member: whether in fact the exercise of judgment- I will call it that for the moment-did not almost inevitably tend to work, first, against the small exporter, as between him and the large one; and second, whether it did not almost tend to prohibit the inception of new businesses.


George James McIlraith: With respect to the first of the two questions, I would say that the exercise of that discretion does not tend to discriminate against the small business operator in favour of the larger one. There is not that difficulty as a practical administrative problem. There is a difficulty about the new

Export and Import Permits Act business; that is, the business not yet formed, but which would normally be formed to go into the export field. In that second case there is a discrimination in favour of an established business.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do you actually have to go further than that? Does it not make it almost impossible for a new business to be set up?


George James McIlraith: If the particular control Involves total prohibition of the export of the product in question, it does, of course, if export trade is necessary in order to establish the business.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I should like to ask if the export permits will be issued in accordance with the previous business of the exporter.


George James McIlraith: Yes. That is the point I just made, Mr. Chairman. When there is a quota, an attempt is made to issue permits on the basis of the previous business of the exporter.


Heber Harold Hatfield: What about the import of steel?


George James McIlraith: As to import control of steel, its primary purpose is to subject imported steel to the effect of the steel control order that prohibits the use of steel for certain types of construction. In the United States, from which country we import a great deal of steel, they have export control over steel but this export control is not applicable to Canada. With power to apply import control over the steel products we can direct them into the more essential uses and we can also avoid having export control made applicable to us from the United States.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The idea is to limit exports to the United States and other countries of essential goods from here. Is that it? What I am getting at is a question I have asked many times in the house, namely with regard to nails. In the report that I have here I notice that 365 hundredweight of wire nails were shipped to the United States last year. We have a desperate shortage of nails at the present time and fewer nails were manufactured in Canada last year than the year before.


George James McIlraith: I thought I made that point clear in answer to a question a few days ago in the house, but I am afraid I have not done so. As will appear from the answer, the quantity of nails exported is slight. The nail operation to the United States involves a plant where the rod is shipped in from the United States, the wire is cut here, and a percentage of it is returned to the United States. In other words, while it is quite true that there is an export of nails to the

United States, there is no loss to the Canadian market. It refers to a semi-finished product imported.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There is between Canada and the United States, with regard to the rods coming in, an agreement to the effect that you must return so much to the United States. Is that the idea?


George James McIlraith: No. It is a matter of having the facilities of the plant fully used, and we get some net benefit out of it. There is actually no agreement with the United States on it, but there is quite a close liaison between the steel offices in the two countries.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Is there any arrangement between the control board in Canada and the control board in the United States with regard to imports?


George James McIlraith: The situation is simply this. We have our liaison in Washington, and we
have working information and knowledge about each control they have on there. There is no specific arrangement as such, but we have knowledge of all these things; that is, we have day to day knowledge and liaison on such matters as steel and similar products that are crossing the border regularly and come under this legislation.


Heber Harold Hatfield: I had occasion to use some steel a few weeks ago andi made a request to the steel controller, Mr. Harris, here in Canada. He turned me down. I was, however, able to buy that steel in the United States. Is there any arrangement whereby I can import that steel now I have bought it?


George James McIlraith: There is close examination before we permit the import into Canada of a product for a use which is prohibited in the United States.


Heber Harold Hatfield: It is not prohibited in the United States or I would not have bought it.


George James McIlraith: I should like to have a look at that particular case again.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to come back again to a point which interests me and that is the danger-and' the parliamentary assistant has not fully satisfied me on this point-that the small man is penalized as against the big man. A reference was made to that point in the evidence. I do not remember the exact words, but the tenor of the argument was that the bigger people, with their larger operation, could probably operate somewhat more economically than the smaller people and that therefore you sometimes had to prefer them over the smaller man. I regret that I have not here with me the exact wording of the argument-I have sent for the book-but that was the tenor of

it. I think that would be a terribly unfortunate thing. I should like to hear something more about it.


George James McIlraith: I do not think there is much more I can say about that. It is perfectly obvious that if you are exporting a product and you cut down eighty per cent, a large manufacturer may be able to adapt his plant to the small output for export, and a smaller manufacturer may of course be hurt; but beyond that I have not, in my experience, run into any complaint of the small businessman as opposed to the large businessman. There does not seem to be any difficulty on that score. I am not aware of any.


The Chairman:: Shall the clause carry?


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Chairman. There is a point that arises in connection with the exchange of remarks that has been taking place which I think should receive the attention of the Prime Minister and the consideration of the house.
As I apprehend the practice, there is a well established custom that the minister of a department speaks on behalf of his department, and that there is a special reason for his giving certain explanations and undertakings related to the principle of joint cabinet responsibility. Without in any way questioning the capacity of any individual member to deal with any particular subject, I think a question is now raised that should be considered without our waiting any longer. So far as I am aware, this is only the second department in which the parliamentary assistant has dealt with legislation before the house, and, in the process of dealing with legislation before the house, has been called upon to give explanations and what would amount to undertakings that would, in the ordinary course of events, be regarded as binding the government as to its intention in relation to that legislation.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that there is a long established reason for ministers giving that explanation, which has no suggestion of a reflection on the capacity of any other individual member of the house, but it does relate to the fact that only ministers can speak for the government. In this particular instance we are dealing with very important legislation. It is apparent that the parliamentary assistant in this instance has taken pains to inform himself in regard to the details of the measure before the house, and he has obviously made an earnest effort to give the explanations which he thinks are appropriate.
I submit, however, that he is not in a position to bind the government as to its intentions; I submit also that the government would be free from any measure of responsibility in
2, 1951
Export and Import Permits Act regard to a statement that he might make. I therefore suggest that the Prime Minister should inform the house as to whether in this instance the parliamentary assistant is to be regarded as speaking with the responsibility of the government; and also whether it is suggested that it is a desirable practice in this house for parliamentary assistants to make statements on behalf of the government as a whole, rather than to follow the longer established practice of having other ministers speak on behalf of the government, if the minister in question is not available at the time.
I think also the Prime Minister should take under consideration the wisdom of having parliamentary assistants make statements on behalf of the government at a time that the minister of that department is available, and that under our well established practice he would appear to be the minister or the member of the house best suited and best qualified to give the explanation.
Another question arises, perhaps of minor importance, but one which it seems may well be settled in regard to matters of that kind. It was my understanding that by long established custom members speak from their own seats, and a question arises as to whether we are to have the practice of parliamentary assistants moving onto the cabinet benches to give to themselves the mantle of some added appearance of authority.


George James McIlraith: It is to enable you to hear, a courtesy.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I am raising
this as a matter of very clearly established parliamentary practice and not, as I pointed out before, with any reflection on any particular member. But questions have already been raised during this session, and earlier sessions, as to the principle of joint cabinet responsibility which is involved in matters of this kind; and I once again place before the Prime Minister the desirability of his clarifying this situation and informing the house as to whether we are now to be regarded as having established the practice that in matters which come before the house on behalf of any department it is the accepted practice to authorize parliamentary assistants to speak on behalf of the department and on behalf of the government.


George James McIlraith: I think perhaps I should say something about the remarks made by the leader of the opposition. I do not know just how relevant they are in the committee stage of the bill, but in any event I think I should, out of obligation to all hon. members, make one point clear right at the very first of my remarks. My reason for moving from my

Export and Import Permits Act own seat a little closer to the front was twofold. First of all, and above all, it was as a courtesy to all hon. members opposite so that they might hear me a little more clearly. I hope that that courtesy will be appreciated, because it was intended to be a courtesy, and it was done for that reason mainly.
I noted the remarks of the leader of the opposition-as a matter of fact I wrote them down. It was suggested that the movement forward was to give the appearance of added authority. I did not raise any point of order when those remarks were made, and I think perhaps the best thing to do with them is just to leave them as they were uttered. It seems to me there has not been much evidence of a desire to take the appearance of added authority from those who have observed things around here during the last five or six years. And while the new complaint, if I may call it that, comes forward tonight, I do not know that I should say much by way of reply to it.
I know that all hon. members in all parties, including the official opposition, will draw their own conclusions on the point. I am content to leave it thus.


George Alexander Drew: I think one point that should
be raised is that the hon. member now speaking is not the appropriate member to deal with this subject.


George James McIlraith: I note the interruption of
the leader of the opposition and my colleague from the adjoining constituency. I know his apparent feeling with regard to it. I am not entirely unflattered by that. As to his earlier remarks about parliamentary assistants giving undertakings and so on, quite a few questions were asked tonight about the bill. As a matter of fact, they seemed to me to be thoroughly relevant, since they had to do with the operation of the act and the bill before the house, but I do not recall a specific undertaking as such requiring to be given, but a great many explanations were asked for. Those explanations were given as fully as I thought was reasonable in the circumstances, and in an effort to answer each point raised.
Now, the doctrine of an undertaking being given when there was none asked is another thing altogether. I recall that at law school, in dealing with the interpretation of statutes, I always held the opinion that the important thing in the interpretation of statutes was what those statutes said, and that the debates in the House of Commons in support of them, while possibly of interest and illuminating, certainly were not the criterion of what was the law of the land. The law, rather,


was to be found in the relevant sections themselves. I do not know that there is much purpose in digressing into a discussion of that subject at this time.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps I should say a word in answer to what is not the first suggestion by the leader of the opposition that the business of parliament in this House of Commons is not properly conducted. It is not the first time the hon. member has suggested that things we were doing may be all right, but that we were doing them in the wrong way. That was one of the very frequent notes sounded when he first came to the house. Recently we have not heard it so frequently.
But perhaps we might not hear the kind of suggestion he made this evening if he read the form of the legislation in which he himself participated. It is not in force for this fiscal year, because the estimates for 1952 have not'been adopted yet. But the item in question is couched in the same language as was used the first time the appointment of parliamentary assistants was decided upon, and ratified by the house.
The vote in this year's estimates, proposed to the house is in the same language as has been voted for many years, reads as follows:
To provide hereby, notwithstanding anything contained in the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act or the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of parliament, for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to each member of the House of Commons appointed by the governor in council to be a parliamentary assistant (which appointment shall not render such member ineligible or disqualify him as: a member of the House of Commons) to assist a minister of the crown in such manner and to such extent as the minister may determine and to represent his department in the House of Commons in the absence of the minister therefrom, a salary of four thousand dollars per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year.
In previous years this has been part of the statutory legislation of this country, and I suggest that it is apt to be part of the statutory legislation of this country for the fiscal year 1951-52. It provides that the parliamentary assistant is to assist the minister of the crown in such manner and to such extent as the minister may determine, and to represent his department in the House of Commons in the absence of the minister therefrom.
That seems to me to justify the minister in asking his parliamentary assistant to take over the duty of supplying the information that may be required in the discussion of a bill such as this. The fact that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Defence Production is here, and gave the explanation on second reading of the bill, and the fact

"that he is answering questions with respect to the bill in committee stage, should be sufficient proof that his minister has indicated that that is the manner and the extent to which he wished to have his assistance, in this instance, in return for the stipend of $4,000 a year provided in this vote.
I was here during the whole time this discussion in committee has taken place, and it did not appear to me that there was any undertaking being requested. Of course the practice is to have motions submitted by one of the minister's colleagues; because when a minister proposes second reading of his bill, or proposes any forward movement of his bill, he proposes it in the form in which it is submitted; and if there is to be any amendment, then under our rules he is not competent to move it himself.
Until parliament revokes this practice of there being parliamentary assistants, I suggest that the manner in which they have dealt with the business of the departments to which they have been appointed has, so far, been very satisfactory; and that if and when any undertaking is required, such as for instance the undertaking that is given when supplementary estimates are voted, that is always given by the minister of the department concerned. If in the course of the discussion of any of the measures before the house an undertaking were required, the question of its being given could be properly referred, by the parliamentary assistant supplying the information, to his minister, for that undertaking. If it were given by the parliamentary assistant, and were not an undertaking the government was prepared to respect, I suggest the one who had given it would not long remain a parliamentary assistant.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, the Hansard record of what was said earlier will show very clearly that no comment was made which called for the manner in which the Prime Minister proceeded to deal with my remarks at the outset. I am dealing with a question of established practice and principle; and when the time comes that members of the House of Commons are not free to raise questions as to practice, procedure and principle, then indeed we shall have gone a very long way toward defeating the very purpose for which we are now carrying on these discussions.
When the Prime Minister referred to undertakings as specific undertakings, he indicated himself that it would be customary to entrust the giving of such undertakings to a minister. I would point out that this evening we have been dealing with legislation that can hardly be regarded as the ordinary type of legislation for this or similar legislative bodies. We are
2, 1951
Export and Import Permits Act dealing with something in the nature of emergency legislation, which gives to the government very wide discretionary powers, as has been frankly admitted by the parliamentary assistant now dealing with the measure before the committee.
The explanations given as to the effect of the legislation and as to how it may be employed, and as to what the intention of the government is in regard to it, and the necessity for it, all form part of the pattern of a very loose system of dealing in an emergency with matters of this kind in a manner that ordinarily would not be regarded as acceptable to members of the house.
At such time it would seem that it is desirable for the members of this house to know the extent to which the government is bound by explanations that are given, and that it is also highly desirable that the people of this country and the people whose business will be affected by measures of this nature should also know how far the government is to be bound by statements of this kind. The Prime Minister has referred to provision that is made for parliamentary assistants and he has stated that a parliamentary assistant may be named who, under the direction of the minister, will carry out certain duties on behalf of a department. He has pointed out also that in the provision for parliamentary assistants it is explained that the parliamentary assistant shall represent the department or may represent the department in the absence of the minister.
There is a difference between representing a department and making explanations which amount to expressions of the government's opinion as to how something shall be done, or what the extent and effect of legislation will be. I have raised this point but I do not intend to press it further at this time. I suggest that it would be well when we are dealing with emergency legislation to be careful that we do know that the government is bound by such explanations or undertakings as are given, and it was with that in mind that I raised the question tonight.
We have had other emergency legislation before the house already and we may have more before the session is concluded. I suggest, having regard to the reasons why ministers speak on behalf of the government, bound as they are by a special oath of office and by special traditional responsibilities, that where explanations are to be given which will have great effect upon the business of this country and upon the understanding of the legislation that is being passed in very loose form, but granting very wide powers,

Export and Import Permits Act ministers themselves should be the ones to speak on behalf of the government.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Customs officers' duties.
Heber Harold Hatfield: It is provided that no goods shall be imported which are supported under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, the Fisheries Prices Support Act, the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act and the Agricultural Products Act. What about goods imported into Canada from the United States which are supported by the United States government? It might be that the cost to an exporter in the United States would be only 25 per cent of the raw material cost in this country.


George James McIlraith: That would not be a matter for import control under this authority but rather for dumping duties under the Customs Act, as I see it.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Potato starch has been coming in from the United States to compete with the Canadian products and that particular commodity is supported in the United States.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like the parliamentary assistant to give a further explanation with regard to the new section 4 with its clauses (a) (b) and (c), and also subsection 2. Will he explain just how the section is to operate? This section provides that no article is to be included in the list with regard to imports and then the qualifications are given in the paragraphs (a) (b) and (c).


George James McIlraith: I take it that we have reverted to section 1 of the bill.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think
there was a misunderstanding.


George James McIlraith: This section sets out the authority for applying import control. There is no change except a grammatical change in paragraph (a); paragraph (b) contains no change, while paragraph (c) is new and involves the one new principle in the whole bill, the authority to apply import controls where the production of a product is restricted under legislation other than this bill. Perhaps I should point out that under the defence preparedness program wide powers are given, as I think my hon. friend will agree. There may be demands made on an industry or on materials and supply and this section authorizes the application of import control where the production of a particular product is regulated or otherwise restricted. There is authority under paragraph (c) to control the import of a similar


product. When it is viewed in that light I think it will be seen to be quite desirable.


Mr, Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Will this
subsection apply in the case of a Canadian manufacturer who is forced to carry out a utility form of manufacture with various gadgets left off from his product? I understand that the intention is that such manufacturer would not then be exposed to the import of a similar article from the United States.


George James McIlraith: The power to do that, if it were done, would be found in this subsection.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Does that mean that a person who is prohibited from producing in Canada would not be able to import from the United States?


George James McIlraith: It means that if a manufacturer were refused permission to produce a particular type of article under this legislation there would be authority to control the import of similar types of articles.


Heber Harold Hatfield: If I cannot buy steel in
Canada and can buy it in the United States, if there is no prohibition in the United States of export to Canada, will I be prevented from importing that steel into Canada?


George James McIlraith: The only quarrel I would have with that is that the example is perhaps not too apt. If the hon. member would take some other manufactured product the example would be better.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Previously the minister
mentioned three different lists. Would it be possible to have those in Hansard, or are they too long?


George James McIlraith: They are much too long, and I understand they were tabled with the report for last year. If there is any desire at any time to have the lists tabled, that could be done. The export list would be much too long to include in Hansard. The import list is quite short, covering simply iron and steel products.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then how about the changes from last year? Would it be possible to put those in so that we could know what they are?


George James McIlraith: It would be rather difficult to do that, because they involve some quite small subheadings. To pick them out I think would be meaningless and not helpful to the house. There is no objection at all to having the lists tabled from time to time. If it is helpful to hon. members I can do that any time it is desired.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What I was getting at is the different categories of goods, the different

lines of goods prohibited. Previously, when we had full control, it was difficult for people who travelled to the United States to know just what they could and could not bring back. I think we should have the list so they would know just where they stood. There was difficulty previously. People went over and bought things without knowing they were on the prohibited list. When they got back as far as the border they were told the articles were prohibited, and the people from whom they bought them would not take them back.


George James McIlraith: I am inclined to think the difficulty of which the hon. member speaks was under the emergency import control legislation, which was rather different and very much wider in scope.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This would affect them in the same way.


George James McIlraith: There is a great difference between the two pieces of legislation. If you examine the authority for applying import controls you will see that they can be applied only to a narrower list of goods. I do not foresee the difficulty my hon. friend envisages. I am aware that it did exist under the other legislation; I quite admit that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It did; and it caused hardships.


George James McIlraith: But it will be remembered that the previous legislation applied not only to capital goods but to a long list of consumer goods. It is not anticipated, nor is it easily foreseeable, that the same difficulty would arise under this legislation. At the risk of coming close to an undertaking, I would be of the impression that there will not be great numbers of items under import control under this legislation.


Heber Harold Hatfield: If I am a manufacturer of steel products in Canada and cannot buy steel in this country because of the steel controller but can buy steel in the United States, can I bring that steel into Canada and manufacture it here or am I out of business?


George James McIlraith: I cannot imagine the
situation arising in just the way outlined by the hon. member, because the two steel authorities work in close conjunction with each other, and the iron and steel import control is for the purpose of preventing the importation of steel for a use which is prohibited. Bearing that in mind it is very difficult to understand the anticipated difficulty.


Heber Harold Hatfield: A man who manufactures in Canada has been refused steel here, but he can buy steel in the United States. There is no trouble in buying steel in the United States
Export and Import Permits Act today, but are you permitted to import it into Canada to be manufactured here?


George James McIlraith: I must correct that last
statement. There is the very greatest difficulty in buying steel in the United States. They, like ourselves, have a shortage of steel and other metals, and there is very real difficulty in buying steel there.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Why should you prohibit the importation of steel products from the United States when there is a shortage of steel in Canada? That is what I would like to know.


George James McIlraith: The simple answer is that we do not. We apply import control and grant permits only where the use of the steel is consistent with the steel controls, which are based on the idea of a similar use being made of steel in Canada to that being made in the United States. In other words they are applicable to the extent that steel cannot be used to build certain less essential structures such as places of amusement. There is no general prohibition on the import of steel.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Is there any prohibition against the importation of steel for the manufacture of automobiles?


George James McIlraith: I am not sure if it comes under the order; but whether or not it does, steel for the manufacture of automobiles is in scarce supply.


Heber Harold Hatfield: We have the iron ore, we have the coal, we have the hydroelectric power. Why is there a shortage of steel in Canada?


George James McIlraith: That is rather a large question to answer in the committee stage of a bill, but there are two or three obvious reasons.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Why not do something about it?


George James McIlraith: One of the obvious reasons is that a sufficient number of men in this country lacked enough confidence in our development to enlarge the manufacturing capacity to make steel out of the iron ore, the limestone and the coal which go into its manufacture. This subject rather interests me and I could get off on it; but I think that is the simple answer. They have not had sufficient faith in the future of the country to build the additional capacity required.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Without
enlarging upon it I would venture to suggest another reason, that we have had demands for steel quite beyond the imagination of most of us, at any rate. However, I rose to ask this question. If in fact there is a situation such as the hon. member for Victoria-Carle-ton has described, however exceptional it may be, where a man does own steel in the

Export and Import Permits Act United States is there anything in our legislation to prevent him from bringing that steel into this country?


George James McIlraith: No, not in a general way; but it could be brought under import control, and the import control is only applicable to uses which are forbidden. Let me put it a little more bluntly if I may. I suppose in most countries there is that horrible thing called a black market. I suppose if one found a product in that black market and bought it, the importation of that article conceivably could be prevented under this legislation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wonder if the parliamentary assistant would carry that a little further. I understood him to say a moment ago that he thought it would not come definitely within the purview of the act; if I misunderstood him he will correct me. It seems to me that is something quite outside the ordinary scope of the act. It seems an exceptional situation.


George James McIlraith: The simple and rather short answer to the proposition put up by the hon. member opposite, but which is so harsh I did not want to give it in that way is no. Theoretically I suppose that "no" would not be a complete answer, because as I said it is possible to buy steel in the United States and apply for an import permit when the steel is to be used for a purpose not permitted. It is technically possible, but it is against the whole purpose of the legislation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Why is the
answer "no" if it is not covered by the law?


George James McIlraith: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am wholly unable to answer why such things as criminals exist in the world today. The point I made was carefully illustrated, was carefully phrased, and was surrounded by the words "in the black market." I do not know what the hon. member for Greenwood understands by the "black market" but I understand that as something outside the law.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We are not
talking about that.


George James McIlraith: I am sorry, but I used that example when I referred to it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That still is not an answer to my question. If in fact a Canadian owns steel in the United States, is there anything in these powers that would enable you to prevent him from bringing it in?


George James McIlraith: There is authority, and there is in fact the necessity, for an import permit under this legislation. The import permit would not be granted for steel bought in the
(Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) .1

United States which was to be used for a purpose prohibited by orders under other legislation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The assistant is importing into my question something which was not there. He has answered this question on the assumption that it would be forbidden by the steel orders. He does not know that, he is just assuming that.


George James McIlraith: Well, the particular facts, would have to be looked at. The question can only be answered on that assumption.


George Alexander Drew: Let us take a specific illustration. It is well known, for instance, that the Krupp firm now has an agent in this country. I believe it is well known to the parliamentary assistant that they may be shipping steel into Canada. In that case it would be necessary for the purchaser here to apply for an import permit. None of the questions that are suggested in regard to importation from the United States apply in that particular case, so far as I am aware, in view of the controls that are exercised at the other end, what would be the circumstances which would guide the nature of the import permit that would be granted to those importing for Krupps under this arrangement?


George James McIlraith: I am sure we would be very anxious to get the steel. When we are using the term "steel" I should properly point out that only certain forms of it are brought under control at all. I would say that we would be rather anxious to get the steel into Canada.
I must say that I am perhaps subject to the criticism that, in answering the member for Victoria-Carleton, I got off on the point of importation of steel from the United States. Indeed, that is the country from which a great part of it is imported, and because there was a reference to the United States in the earlier part of our remarks, I perhaps continued my remarks on the premise of that earlier reference.


Mr. Gillis:: With regard to the import and export of steel, I find it hard to understand why, at this stage of the game and with the potential steel productive capacity of this country, we should be talking in terms of a shortage of steel and depending upon the United States for that product. This shortage is not something that developed overnight. As the parliamentary assistant and the Minister of Trade and Commerce know, this problem has existed since 1945. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was fully aware of it, and I am not blaming him particularly. Four years ago in this house he announced that the government was prepared to assist

the operating steel companies in Canada if they would expand their plants to take care of the obvious shortage in the future. For every dollar the companies would spend in expansion, the government was prepared to give them a dollar.
At least eight months after making that offer, when the minister was questioned in the house as to how much of that money had been taken up by the three operating steel companies and what their plans for expansion were, the minister reported that Dosco had refused any of it; Algoma did not take any of it, but Stelco did take some and did expand their capacity to a considerable extent. We cannot wholly blame the government in that particular case. What is the matter with the operating steel companies in Canada? They knew the shortage was coming, and they knew they could not supply the market. In season and out of season groups in the country who recognized what this was going to do to the country in the future have been urging upon the federal government, and the provincial government, the necessity for the steel companies to do something about this developing shortage. This was four years ago, yet we wait until we reach a crisis before we do anything about it.
I just came from Nova Scotia. The federation of labour, the labour councils and the unions are now meeting with the provincial government of Nova Scotia, and urging them to urge the federal government to urge the steel companies to expand their plant capacity in Nova Scotia. Everyone has been urging the steel companies for the last four years. It appears to me as though the three major steel operating companies in this country control steel. Whether our requirements are going to be met during peace or war, it is immaterial to them. I believe that the crux of the matter is that the steel companies believe this is an abnormal market. They are afraid that when the defence program is over, and the needs of war are met, they will find themselves with plants on their hands and no market for the product; that is the problem. This talk about import and export of steel is quibbling with the matter, and we have been doing that for four years. The United States is making plans to take care of future shortages by building basic steel plants in eastern Canada now. I always thought that the policy of the government was to assist free enterprise up to the point where it falls down on the job. I believe that statement was made by most of the ministers in this house. Free enterprise has fallen down on the job on the production of steel.
2, 1951
Export and Import Permits Act
During the last war the Minister of Trade and Commerce built plants all over this country when risk capital could not be found to do it. With the iron ore, coal, and manpower available, instead of quibbling about exports or imports from the United States, why does the minister not issue an ultimatum next week saying that if Dosco, Stelco and Algoma cannot meet the requirements of this country in a commodity that is as basic to our whole economy, particularly now in this developing defence situation, then he is going to do something about it. It would not take the Minister of Trade and Commerce long to throw together a basic steel plant in a part of the country where all the material and the manpower are available. That would be carrying out government policy as announced right after the war: where free enterprise falls down, we take over. I think the time has come to take over and to develop in this country a steel plant that will at least assist in meeting our own Canadian requirements. I think we should tackle the problem in that way. The hon. member for Victoria-Carleton said he wanted a few hundred pounds of steel and could not get it. That is a situation that holds true all over the country. The little fellow has been squeezed out of the picture completely. The big fellow who has enough power behind him will get steel to carry on his normal business; and if he drops off 25 per cent of his peacetime production, he will take up the slack in wartime contracts. But the little fellow who wants only four hundred or five hundreds pounds of steel cannot get it.
I did not want to get into a left-handed discussion of this kind of thing, Mr. Chairman, but it leaves me a bit impatient. We have been screaming about this steel business for the last five years; now we hit the spot where we have not any and we must say, "Please, Mr. Truman, can we have some steel?" That is the situation, in spite of all the potential steel development there is in this country. If free enterprise does not do the job, let us do it ourselves. Let us put a plant up. Free enterprise will move quickly if they find that the government intends to take up that slack as they promised right after the war was over.
I do not get greatly excited about this import-export business. We are just hitting a problem that we ourselves made and we have been sitting in this chamber and neglecting over the last five years. We have bowed to the will of the fellow who is thinking in terms of profits only and not in terms of the requirements of the country for any particular purpose. He is thinking five years

Migratory Birds Convention Act ahead when he may not have a market, when the abnormal market of defence is gone. That is the policy of the present people who control steel in this country. I hope the parliamentary assistant will come to the conclusion that, instead of being held up to ridicule in the house and talking in terms of a few thousand pounds of steel back and forth across the border, we should get down to business and use the resources of this country to do the job that those who have risk capital today appear to be afraid to use. I think it is time to implement government policy and to take over where risk capital fails to meet the requirements of the country.


Mrs. Fairclough:: It always seems to be a popular sport in this chamber to impute motives, whatever they may be. I should like to draw to the attention of the committee the fact that in the city from which I come are some of the largest steel plants in this country-in fact, some of the largest ones on this continent. At the present time two of those plants have undertaken huge expansion programs that should come to the notice of this committee. I do not think it is right and proper for any member of this committee to say that the people who run those plants are selfishly inclined when they are investing huge sums, in excess of $30 million, in plant expansion at the present time.


Clarence Gillis: But we have not any steel.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read
the third time?


Alphonse Fournier: Now, by leave.


Mr. Knowles:: By leave.
Mr. Fournier, Hull (for Mr. Howe) moved the third reading of the bill. ,
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT


Robert Henry Winters: the second reading of Bill No. 80, to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, which was originally enacted in 1917, implements the migratory birds treaty between Canada and the United States. The treaty is similarly implemented in the United States by act of congress.


The treaty and the implementing acts were intended to preserve the various migratory birds which cross the international boundary each year; and as is well known to hon. members the treaty and its implementing acts have served their basic purpose.
It is not proposed at this time to make any substantive changes in the act. There are, however, a few minor matters which require amendment in order that the act and the machinery established for its administration may continue to perform in the best possible way the functions for which they are intended.
Subsection 2 of section 5 presently provides that persons who are appointed game officers by the minister responsible for the act or who are, as in the case of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, game officers ex officio, hold office during pleasure and have the powers and duties defined by the act and regulations. Legal opinion is that this subsection is unnecessary, and it is therefore proposed to repeal it.
It is also proposed to repeal subsections 5 and 6 of section 5 and to replace both subsections by a subsection to be numbered 4. The purpose of this consolidation is to make it clear that all the provinces of Canada are on the same footing with respect to the appointment of game officers. Subsection 5 in its present form was placed in the act because the province of Ontario was the first province to indicate its desire that its game officers appointed under the Ontario Game Act should also act as game officers under this act. Subsection 6 was later added when other provinces made similar requests. The present proposed consolidation does not alter the scope or effect of these subsections but does provide for uniformity of treatment of all provinces in respect of the appointment of provincial game officers as game officers under this act.
The principal amendment embodied in the present bill is the amendment proposed to section 7 of the act. In recent years it has become clear that, with the increased use of motor vehicles and aircraft in hunting migratory birds, these means of transportation should be specifically included among the articles which, if used in committing violations of the act, can be seized by game officers. I may say that most of the provinces have already amended their provincial game acts to accomplish this purpose; and the amendment now proposed to the Migratory Birds Convention Act was requested by the 1950 conference of federal and provincial wildlife officers, in which the principal game administrators of the provinces took part.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, there was before the house a motion which dealt with certain problems connected with migratory birds. While it would be improper to discuss the subject matter of that motion in relation to the bill now before the house, I would point out that an undertaking was given at that time by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) which keeps alive the possibility of an amendment which goes beyond the amendment contemplated in the bill now under discussion. It is not desirable in the ordinary course of events for two amending bills dealing with the same act to be introduced during the same session, although it can be done. For that reason I would remind the house that an undertaking was given to approach the government of the United States to see whether it would not be possible to have an appropriate arrangement made so that there might be an amendment to the Migratory Birds Convention Act, which would make it possible for the people of the province of Newfoundland to continue, as they did in the past, to shoot certain migratory birds which have been used for food.
Having regard to that undertaking, and having regard to the fact that it did seem more convenient that the amendments be brought in in on-e bill, if there are to be any other amendments, I would ask the minister if he is in a position to say whether anything has resulted from the approach to the government of the United States, and if it is not more desirable that this bill should stand with the possibility that there might be one amending bill which would embrace those further amendments of advantage to the people of Newfoundland, to be dealt with at the same time as the present amendments are under consideration?


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to say a few words on these amendments. Although this may be an inconspicuous bill to some hon. members, it is an important bill to the members of this group, because throughout the years the members of this group have always been great advocates of the conservation of our natural resources, and migratory birds are very valuable natural resources so far as this country is concerned. Therefore because the principle and purpose of this bill are to provide for a better conservation of migratory birds in Canada this group gives it its wholehearted support.
I might say before passing on, Mr. Speaker, that I for one am very pleased to know that the minister himself has become somewhat of a migratory bird; that he has been getting around Canada and seeing all these various
Migratory Birds Convention Act aspects of the branches of the department which he has the honour to administer. I think it is excellent indeed. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I might say that in British Columbia I have met at least a dozen people who appreciated very much that the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters) did something that very few ministers do, namely, spent a few days in the interior of British Columbia during December last.
Fortunately for this country throughout the years, Mr. Speaker, there have always been a number of Canadians and a number of Canadian organizations that have been interested in the conservation of our natural resources: forests, water, land, game, fish and things of that kind. Before passing on I do wish to pay tribute to an organization that has done a great deal on the North American continent for the conservation of geese and ducks. I refer particularly to Ducks Unlimited, an organization, Mr. Speaker, which was formed I understand in the first instance by United States sportsmen and supported by many Canadian sportsmen and other Canadians interested in the conservation of our natural resources. This organization did a great deal to develop the protection of migratory birds by the preservation and extension of breeding grounds and nesting places. I understand that around 1934 the migratory bird population, so far as ducks and geese are concerned, was very much reduced, and there was a great deal of alarm aroused in Canada over this reduction of the migratory bird population. But just as the result of a little planning-I would like to point out that up to that time free enterprise had full play, or practically full play, so far as our migratory birds were concerned- since we have had a little planning, a little co-operation, a little regulation we have increased immensely the migratory bird population of Canada, and also the birds that go to the United States.


Mr. Prudham:: That was private enterprise.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Absolutely, all private enterprise.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys says that it was private enterprise. Yes, there were a considerable number of private enterprisers who had been infected by the doctrine of conservation preached by people belonging to the group to which I belong.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Oh, now, now; don't praise yourself on that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I see that I have annoyed the hon. member for Peterborough West. I think his conscience pricks him.

Migratory Birds Convention Act


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my conscience does not prick me because in this house, five years ago I believe, I mentioned the fact of shooting from aeroplanes. I mentioned that, and said it should not be carried on.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad to hear of the exception which proves the rule.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is not an exception. You will find many other members around here who have been speaking along the same lines.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I understand that the successful administration of this legislation depends upon the co-operation between the provincial and federal governments. So far as British Columbia is concerned, I understand that that co-operation has been extended and has been very successful.
I should like to say that the game commission of British Columbia, which has done excellent work throughout the years in connection with this act and other acts regulating the conservation of game, has been assisted to a great extent by the rod and gun clubs of British Columbia, which are very well organized now, and which throughout the years have done a great deal to develop public opinion in support of game conservation and the conservation of our natural resources.
Without a doubt, Mr. Speaker, my experience has been-and I have had some considerable experience with rod and gun clubs and fishing and hunting, and things of that sort, living in the country in which I do- that this type of legislation cannot be successfully administered by even the federal or the provincial authorities unless it has the support of, shall I say, a good percentage of people interested in these problems; and that is exactly what has happened in British Columbia. In British Columbia great credit is due to the rod and gun clubs of the province for their co-operation with the authorities and with the game commission, and for their advice and their assistance throughout the years. In fact in British Columbia the game commission depends to a great extent upon the recommendations forwarded to it by rod and gun clubs of that province.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the constituency I have the honour to represent has one of the most active organizations of that type in the province of British Columbia. For years these people have worked to build a public opinion in- support of the conservation of our wildlife and of our natural resources. That was not so in the early days. In the early days game was very plentiful; fish was very plentiful; wildlife in general was plentiful. As a result of overshooting

and overfishing there came a period when the stocks of game, of fish and of wildlife were sadly depleted. Then a small number of people began to take an interest and these organizations were formed. The result today is a very satisfactory administration of our game laws in British Columbia in co-operation with large numbers of people organized, as I said before, in the rod and gun clubs of that province.
Another interesting feature of the development in my province is the interest that has been stimulated among younger people, junior members of the rod and gun clubs. These young people enter fishing competitions, and join- in the activities to a great extent of the adult clubs in fishing and hunting under supervision, and are inculcated with the idea of the value of -our game and natural resources. It is a wonderful training ground for sportsmanship, and sportsmanship is a basic requirement of a sound and functioning democracy.
I am very glad to see the amendments mentioned in this bill, particularly the one with respect to extending the powers of the game officer to seize motor vehicles or aircraft which had been or are being used in violation of the act or any regulation under the act. I am particularly pleased to say that because personally even in recent years I have seen some rather ghastly things happen so far as game is concerned because we had not a section like this in this -act or in similar acts. I have seen American sportsmen come from the eastern United States to our district. They come in a car, or one of those vans, filled with dogs. I have seen them spend days driving through the mountain valleys, with their dogs trained to drive the grouse toward the road. They will go down the centre of the road for about thirty miles or so, and the dogs are trained to drive the birds toward the highway. Those men can sit in their motor vehicle or, if the occasion requires, get out of it quickly, and shoot grouse in wholesale quantities.
The amendment will prevent this sort of thing, so far as the migratory birds are concerned. I have seen power boats used in the shooting of geese and ducks in large numbers. This amendment will remedy that situation.
Only three years ago I saw a light aircraft used to fly around the peaks of some of our mountains, for the purpose of spotting herds of mountain goat which were sheltered on ledges facing the sun, as they usually do in the afternoon. Those aircraft would spot the herds of goat, and then land on a nearby lake. Following that the sportsmen could

go directly up to where the goats were, and shoot them in great numbers.
That is not sportsmanship. This measure would not apply in that case, but I mention it only to indicate the problem we have to face in connection with the conservation of game. In conclusion may I say that this group welcomes these amendments, and we trust the minister and his officials will have every co-operation, as in the past, in giving effect to these improvements in the act.


Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone could complain about the suggested amendments, so long as they will help in the preservation of game. I do not believe the minister intended that this bill should become the occasion for a full-scale debate on the Migratory Birds Convention Act. At the same time we are well aware of the fact that when the estimates are before the committee, and the expenditure in connection with this act is called, it is met by hurried cries of "carried, carried, carried," from the government side, and from all who are anxious to finish the work.
However, I intend to have more to say about the matter at that time. In view of the fact that it may be some time before the estimates are called, I would put this to the minister: I have become aware-and I believe I am not far off the mark-that the migratory birds convention is not being observed by all who are signatories to it. I refer particularly to Mexico, and to some other countries in the south where commercial shooting is carried on. I suggest to the minister that, in view of the fact that there may be discussion later, in which certainly I intend to participate, he should obtain information regarding those countries.
I have been a duck shooter for years. However, last year I called the minister's attention to the fact that the season was altogether too late in our section of the country. Local ducks had gone, with the result that when the season was called we had no shooting of northern ducks. I would agree readily to a closed season if it would do any good, but as I see it-and I have made this statement in the house before-while the provinces are doing a good job of conservation, and doing everything they can to preserve game, all that work is being done at a loss if we preserve the birds in this country only to have them shot farther south.
Anyone who is familiar with duck shooting knows it is much easier to do the shooting in the United States because they know the time, almost to the hour, when the northern ducks will fly into their locality, at which time they will be waiting in the marshes to shoot them.
2, 1951	1559
Migratory Birds Convention Act
I still believe however that the department in the United States is trying to do a good job. They have made limitations as to the number of ducks to be taken, and their game wardens have acted efficiently. The trouble begins farther south, however. Before we have any further debate on the Migratory Birds Convention Act, as it may develop when the estimates are before the committee, I would suggest that the minister would do well to make some inquiries-I am sure he has the means at hand to do so-as to whether we are accomplishing all we might accomplish in North America and in the Caribbean countries to preserve game. I am wondering if some attempt could be made to bring those countries within the provisions of the migratory birds convention.
If commercial shooting exists in the West Indies and in Mexico, then let us have that fact out in the open and do something about it. We are not responsible for the administration of law in those countries; but as matters now stand there can be no doubt that they do have commercial shooting, and that we are protecting ducks that we ourselves are not getting a chance to shoot.
I have said I would agree to a closed season, if it would help. I do not think the fault is with the United States, but I do believe we should do something to get the countries I have mentioned under the provisions of the migratory birds convention. In this way we would be doing something to preserve game. However, so long as we protect ducks in our northern areas, while commercial shooting exists in other areas, we will have difficulties.
The ducks from our northern areas fly over here, and a certain amount of shooting is done. I have never found our sportsmen unreasonable; they have never gone in for wholesale slaughter. I believe a good job is being done in the United States, but I still feel that the convention cannot work effectively so long as commercial shooting exists in those other countries. In those southern areas there is a large influx of people during the winter months. They are not opposed to eating canvas backs or black ducks, if they can be obtained or bought-and I believe that is going on. I do not think we will ever accomplish anything until that practice is stopped.
I make the suggestion that, in preparing his estimates, the minister make further inquiries along these lines. We have done and are doing in Canada what we can to clear up this affair; and I believe the United

Migratory Birds Convention Act States are doing something-although large numbers of ducks perish each year from oil slicks on the eastern coast.
The whole situation is changing rapidly, and I do not find myself as optimistic as the hon. member who spoke a moment ago. The duck population is going down. However, I said at the outset I would not speak at length. My suggestion is that the minister get further information as to what can be done with respect to those Caribbean countries in which commercial shooting is permitted. In this way we would be getting down to the root of the matter.
I approve of everything in Bill No. 80. Any means we can take to stop unsportsmanlike practices in dealing with wild or migratory birds is a step in the right direction. I believe the provinces are doing a good job. While I give the bill my wholehearted support and approval, I would leave the suggestion I have made with the minister.


Mr. W. G. Weir (Portage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, large numbers of ducks come to our northern lakes in Manitoba, and on occasion they come quite close to farm lands. One of the great complaints in those areas concerns the destruction of crops adjoining those lakes. I do not suppose that can be helped to any great extent, but I would urge upon the minister that, in conjunction with the provinces, this matter be considered.
I have been told of quarter sections and of sections of land upon which the crops have been destroyed. I am informed however that there are means of inducing the ducks to go to other fields, and I should like to have that followed out more thoroughly. In other words the suggestion has been made, by some people who have given the subject some study, that certain types of crop can be seeded and will become available at about the time the ducks migrate. It is pointed out that the ducks can be induced to go to those places, and thus leave the other crops alone.
Let me suggest to the house that this is a most serious matter in areas closely adjoining lakes. I know of many farmers who have suffered almost complete loss of their crops because of the damage done by the ducks. Therefore any effort that can be made toward helping to relieve the farmers who happen to be so situated is something that should be followed up. I believe that in our section of the province we have as good sportsmen as are to be found anywhere, and I do not think they can be accused of taking advantage of the rules and regulations which apply to hunting. There is one thing I am going to mention and I do it only to bring it to the attention of those who may be guilty of the


rather common practice of digging pits in which to hide when shooting geese in particular. Frequently those pits are dug on farm land and then not filled in. This creates a hazard and danger. I am suggesting it here so that what little notice there can be given will be taken by those who make a practice of digging these pits in order to shoot the geese or even ducks. In fairness to the farmer on whose land they go they should fill them in after they are used.


Mr. W. J. Browne (Sf. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I support the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). On March 14 we had a motion introduced dealing with this very subject. It was rather fully debated and at the conclusion the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) promised on behalf of the government that the matter would be taken up immediately with the representatives of the United States to see if the objectives of the motion which received such general support in the house could be achieved. Remembering that that motion was supported by petitions from thousands of people in Newfoundland, remembering the economic importance of it, I think this an opportune time to ask if any progress has been made by the government in arranging a conference with representatives of the United States.
Since that debate took place I have been informed that thousands of the birds we were talking about on that occasion go from the mainland of Newfoundland to the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon where they are shot in great numbers, because France is not a signatory to this convention. It seems rather absurd that a Newfoundlander should not be allowed to shoot these birds while the inhabitants of these islands only a few miles away can shoot them in such great numbers. Therefore, I support the view of the leader of the opposition and trust that when the minister replies he will make some reference to the discussion we had previously.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, in closing this debate I wish to thank all hon. members who have taken part for the contribution they have made. It is quite evident to everyone in the house, and I think it is also quite evident to everybody in the country, that there is the greatest interest in the conservation of our migratory birds. I am quite certain that whatever steps are taken will be taken to that end.
I would refer specifically to the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and supported by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne). Following the

useful debate we had earlier having to do with the shooting of murres or turrs in Newfoundland, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) indicated that we would approach the United States authorities to see what could be done to make it possible for Newfoundlanders to pursue their practice when it was necessary to do so in order to sustain life. I have not had an opportunity since the Easter recess of speaking to the Secretary of State for External Affairs about the problem, but I am quite certain that he has not lost sight of it and that he will carry out the commitment he gave to the house at that time that he wouldi have the matter discussed wtih the proper official in the United States.
I am not at all sure that whatever relief one can contemplate will necessarily be in the form of an amendment to the convention. On the other hand, if an amendment is indicated and agreed upon I am not at all sure that it could be brought forward in time to have it dealt with this session, which many of us hope will not be of too long duration. I would think the practical thing to do would be to proceed with this bill and then at a later date, when it becomes clear as to what action can be taken, to take whatever steps are indicated at that time. I believe that that course will commend itself to the house and I hope it does because I attach considerable importance to having this bill passed at as early a date as possible.
I do not think other hon. members would wish me to make specific reference to the points they raised, but I do wish to thank the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) and the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir) for their contributions and assure them that their suggestions will be borne in mind.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Repeal.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I want to make just one remark in regard to section 1, which is regarded as the appropriate section on which to make any general comments, I do not wish to take any exception to what the hon. member for Kootenay West has said, because I think everyone is in agreement with the purpose of the amendment. However, I would point out to him that one reason I am so strongly in support of these amendments is that I have had some experience in the working of amendments of this nature. I think it is an extremely healthy thing in this house
Migratory Birds Convention Act that every hon. member should display, not only his enthusiasm for the part of the country from which he comes but his general enthusiasm for the country as a whole.
I might point out that this provision is not new. It happens that the dominion government deals with migratory birds whereas the provincial government deals with the ordinary birdlife that comes into their areas. It is now five years since this amendment was introduced in Ontario and I may say that it has worked with great satisfaction. For that reason I am strongly in favour of this amendment. My other remarks were merely to point out that the earliest possible consideration should be given to another amendment which I think is most important.


Mr. Argue:: I should like to say a few words on this section following up the remarks of the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa and bring to the minister's attention a situation which prevails in many parts of southern Saskatchewan. Under this bill we seem to be taking steps which are necessary to protect our migratory birds against persons who may take undue advantage of the hunting season, but I think it is also important to protect the material welfare of farmers in certain areas. Great damage is frequently caused to farmers' crops. I know from personal experience of farmers who have lost as much as $1,000 or $2,000 worth of barley over a week end. I know in my area there is seldom a farmer's convention of any description which does not pass some kind of resolution asking that they be given the power to deal with ducks which may threaten the destruction of their crops.
I am bringing this matter to the attention of the minister. I would like his comment upon it, and would ask him to give consideration to anything that might be done to help those farmers protect their fields of grain which are important to the nation and to the individual, and which I am sure no one would like to see destroyed.


Mr. McCusker:: There is already provision for that. A farmer whose crop is being destroyed or damaged by ducks may apply to the provincial government and obtain a licence to protect it. That is the situation at the present time.


An hon. Member:: In what province?


Emmett Andrew McCusker: In Saskatchewan.


Robert Henry Winters: The hon. member for Assini-boia asked for my comments. They would be in line with those of the hon. member for Regina City. This problem was highlighted by a condition which developed along the Ottawa river and which was brought to the attention of the house on several occasions

Migratory Birds Convention Act by the hon. member for Renfrew North. It came to a head this year. Each year a considerable number of geese were landing on the property of farmers in the area in question, and the matter of how to deal with them was the subject of considerable local controversy. One group felt the geese should be fed, otherwise they would starve. On the other hand the farmers who owned valuable property there were having their crops destroyed and their land rendered pretty well useless. Delegations came to see me representing both sides of the argument. The federal government took the position that fundamentally it was a provincial problem to deal with the geese once they were within the province, but that we would do all we could to help carry out a program in cooperation with the province that would be in the best interests of all concerned.
After a number of years, and after considering all the factors, it seemed clear that the best thing would be to lure the geese somewhere else when they could alight on property not so valuable. Despite considerable pressure brought to bear on the Ontario government to feed the geese where they were in the habit of landing, they decided against that course and we supported that view. We thought the welfare of the farmers in the district must be a prior consideration, and that steps should be taken to lure the geese away in the first place, or to drive them away by scare methods where that was indicated.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does the minister mean farmers cannot obtain permits to shoot the ducks in order to scare them away? It is pretty hard if you can only go out and wave a flag at them. If you shoot a few you may scare the rest away.


Robert Henry Winters: Farmers may obtain permits to take what steps are necessary. If shooting is indicated they may get permits to shoot.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am interested in getting the particulars. Is that within the jurisdiction of the province?


Robert Henry Winters: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: How early in the season may permits be obtained? Can they be obtained only as soon as the ducks arrive, or can the farmer start taking steps earlier? I do not want the ducks shot before they are even there, but very often they are hatched and raised in the vicinity of a field of barley, for example. Does the farmer have to wait until a specific time of year, or can he start out early in June to take measures to keep the ducks away? If you wait until the ducks get there it may be a little late to apply for a


permit. I should like to know the extent of the jurisdiction of the province. If they have plenty of jurisdiction that will satisfy me.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: My experience in shooting in Saskatchewan for a number of years is that they usually wait until the ducks have grown before they start killing them off. Ducks do not attack a crop until it is ripening. They do not go after green grain. They want the ripe barley and wheat, and they do not damage oats very much. Any farmer who can prove to the provincial government that his crop is being destroyed can obtain permission to protect it, but he cannot sell the game.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I might add that those permits are issued before the regular duck season opens. I would disagree with my colleague from Assiniboia and say that the main destruction to the crops in Saskatchewan is not caused by ducks hatched: in the sloughs at the bottom of the fields. It is caused by the birds that come down from the north in their thousands and gobble up the grain just when it is ready to be put in the stooks.


William Joseph Browne: In the course of the debate on a resolution introduced by my colleague from St. John's East the Secretary of State for External Affairs had this to say at page 1261 of Hansard:
The act would have to be changed if the purposes of this resolution are to be achieved and, as has been pointed out, that act is based on an international convention. An amendment to that convention would require approaching the government of the United States.
Now we find the act being changed, and there does not seem to be any special difficulty about it. Has the government of the United States approached the government of Canada, or does the government of Canada intend to approach the government of the United States in regard to this matter? There seemed to be great difficulty about the other resolution. Is there any difficulty about this, or has it been done by international arrangement?


Robert Henry Winters: I imagine we would be out of order in discussing a subject which was disposed of earlier this session. However, on the broader question of whether or not an international agreement is required to effect the amendment now before the house, the answer is no. This has to do with the enforcement of regulations previously agreed to by the two nations concerned.


William Joseph Browne: But still it is contrary to the logic of the argument put forward in the previous debate.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Robert Henry Winters: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Alphonse Fournier: I suggest that we take order No. 3, which is a non-contentious measure concerning the appointment of auditors for the national railways.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 6, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) suggested that we take this bill, despite the fact that it was not announced for today, on the ground that it would be non-contentious. Well, substantially he is correct, but once again I would like to express the view that the job of auditing the accounts of the Canadian National Railways, instead of being farmed out to a firm of private auditors, reputable though this firm may be, should be done under the direction of the Auditor General of Canada.
As the minister knows, we have suggested this a number of times, and on at least a few occasions he has replied to the arguments we have put forward. I may say that these arguments have been put forward, not only from this corner of the house but they were made in a comprehensive and effective speech by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance some years ago when he was the member for Vancouver North. It seems to us that this job certainly could be done by the Auditor General of Canada, for the amount of business involved with the Canadian National Railways is smaller in terms of the millions and hundreds of millions of dollars that is the case when he audits the accounts for tbe government of Canada. There is no doubt as to the feasibility of the job being done by the Auditor General of Canada.
So far as we are concerned, the strongest reason for ujging that this be done by our own Auditor General is because of the type of report that the Auditor General makes
2. 1951	1563
Canadian National Railways-Auditors when he audits the public accounts, as contrasted with the type of report that any private auditor makes, and such is the case with the audit made by George A. Touche and Company with respect to the accounts of the Canadian National Railways. When a private auditor audits the accounts of any firm, as I understand it, his job is to make certain that these accounts are in order. He makes sure that there are all the necessary vouchers, and that he is given access to all the various accounts he needs to see to make certain that everything is in order. That is what this company does, and the statement which they make at the end of the year, a copy of which is always furnished to us, is drawn up in the traditional form of auditors' statements. However, when the Auditor General of Canada deals with the public accounts he goes a bit further and deals with matters that, shall I say, at least border on questions of policy. The Auditor General not only gives us a statement as to the fact that he has seen all the vouchers he wanted to see, but he gives us that interesting report that is furnished each year at the end of the big book known as the public accounts, in which he points out any seeming irregularities which he feels should be drawn to the attention of parliament, whose servant the Auditor General is.
I feel that we should have that kind of auditing job done with respect to the work of the Canadian National Railways, and it is for that reason it does seem to me that, instead of hiring a private firm, we should arrange for the auditing of the accounts of the Canadian National Railways, and its various subsidiary bodies, to be done by the Auditor General of Canada. I would be glad to hear from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), either at this stage of the debate or when we get into committee, as to whether any further consideration has been given to this matter, and if so what is the result of that consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Auditors.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, this bill is not an unusual one. As the house knows, it comes up every year, and it seeks the appointment of the firm of George A. Touche and Company as auditors for the Canadian National Railways for the year 1951. The firm referred to have been auditing the accounts of the Canadian National Railways ever since its inception in 1923, with the exception of perhaps one year, so that they are quite familiar with the accounts of the
1564	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways

Auditors railway. As a matter of fact, I believe it was George A. Touche and Company who audited the accounts of one of the predecessors of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Northern.
Addressing myself to the suggestion made by the member for Winnipeg North Centre, I should say that parliament has provided for the method in which the audit shall take place. The provision is set out in section 13 of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, 1933, as amended by the act of 1936. In effect it states that a continuous audit of the accounts of national railways shall be made by independent auditors appointed annually by a resolution of parliament and annually reporting to parliament in respect of their audit. What the meaning of that is, I believe, is as clear to the hon. member as it is to me. I think an independent group of auditors-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Surely the Auditor General is independent.


Lionel Chevrier: I think an independent
group of auditors means exactly what it says. While it may be true that it does not exclude the Auditor General, there are reasons other than those contained in section 13, why the government has seen fit to continue to submit to parliament an independent firm of auditors, such as the one recommended in this bill. I do not want to repeat what I have said on earlier occasions, because this is not the first time that the suggestion has been made. It has been made on more than one occasion, and there are compelling reasons against it. For instance, the Auditor General would have to set up quite a financial staff of men to do the work which is being done by this firm of auditors, or which could be done by some other firm. Certainly it could not be said that there would be any curtailment of expenditure by the appointment of the Auditor General. In fact, the studies that we have made in our department lead us to believe that the cost would be greater by the appointment of the Auditor General than by the appointment of an independent firm such as is mentioned in the bill.
Another thing that has to be kept in mind is that this is a continuous audit. Whether or not it is done by the Auditor General, it would take him some time to familiarize himself with the various units and establishments of the Canadian National Railways; that is not done overnight. These people have been at it for years. Then again, the Canadian National Railways operates various units outside of Canada in Duluth, St. Albans, Chicago, and other points in the United States which do not come to my mind at the


moment. The firm that is mentioned in this bill have offices in these United States cities. The Auditor General would have to establish some such staff in those cities in order to audit adequately the accounts of the railway. Those are the main reasons that come to my mind at the moment and which I think militate against the appointment of the Auditor General. For that reason I must tell the committee that I would have to oppose the suggestion.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I rise not to question what the minister has said but to raise this point with him. It arises out of what I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, namely that in this case those who receive or should receive the Auditor General's report, and should form a judgment from it, are far different from those who receive the ordinary auditor's report in the ordinary commercial company. I wonder if the minister has ever considered whether, in those circumstances, the auditors might be requested to go perhaps further afield than they would in the ordinary commercial report and whether they might not in some sense do for this house what the Auditor General does in his report at the end of the public accounts. I have not thought the point through; I raise it without much consideration; but it occurs to me that there is force in what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said in raising the question as to whether we should have some more comprehensive report than the ordinary shareholders get.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I should tell the hon. gentleman that in the railways and shipping committee there is each year a fairly thorough discussion about the independent auditors' report. For instance, I have in my hand their report. Each year there is a fairly lengthy discussion of this report. It contains a list of the recommendations made by the auditors. In addition, there generally follows a discussion of other things upon which in the minds of the committee the auditors should report. The auditors are there and give their reason why they have not reported on them and why in the following year they might do so.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And the
report of that committee is available to the house?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I just wish to say another word or two. The Minister of Transport sought to make a point out of a section of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act which suggests that this audit must be done by an independent auditor. At that point I

made an interjection-but just in case it did not reach the record I should like to repeat it-that surely that does not exclude the possibility of having the Auditor General do the job. Surely the Auditor General meets the qualification of an independent auditor. He is not in the employ of the Canadian National Railways. He is the servant of the parliament of Canada, appointed under the great seal.
I was interested in what the hon. member for Greenwood had to say just now as to the desirability of having in that independent report, whoever makes it, a more comprehensive kind of thing than we now get, something more like that which we get from the Auditor General when he audits the public accounts. To the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, I give full credit for the view I am going to express now and I am referring to the speech he made on this matter two or three years ago when he pointed out that any private firm of auditors that made with respect to the Canadian National Railways the kind of suggestions with regard to policy and so on that are made by the Auditor General in relation to the public accounts, or indeed that made suggestions as far-reaching as that to the government, might find itself not always in favour with the government when this appointment is made. That is a suggestion made, as I say, by the hon. member whom I am quoting. My point is that I think we could get a more independent audit by the Auditor General who is the servant of this parliament and who is used to making the kind of report he is making, than we get from a private firm of auditors whose main interest, after all, is in bookkeeping accuracy and that sort of thing.
The Minister of Transport says that we might not save any money by having the audit done by the Auditor General, because he would have to take on additional staff to do the job now being done by George A. Touche and Company. Certainly the Auditor General would have to expand his staff to do this job; and I grant what the Minister of Transport says, namely, that it might cost us just as much to do it that way as to do it the other way; it might even cost more. But surely what we must look at is not just the actual cost of the audit but the results we would get from that audit. It might be worth more to have the kind of audit of the accounts of the Canadian National Railways that we get from the Auditor General with respect to the public accounts.


Lionel Chevrier: With reference to the last point, the question of the result we would
2, 1951	1565
Canadian National Railways-Auditors get from the audit, let me tell my hon. friend that the report of the independent auditors is made to the railways and shipping committee. There is ample opportunity there to discuss it at length; and if there is any difficulty or any unsoundness about the method of the audit, surely it would come out in the committee and could be given consideration at that time.
With reference to the first point, may I say that I was not attempting to argue that the Auditor General could not be included within the meaning of the section. I was simply saying that parliament had decided that the auditors of the Canadian National Railways should be appointed under that section, namely section 13 of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act.


Major James William Coldwell: I think the minister is
missing the point of my hon. friend's suggestion and that of the hon. member for Greenwood. It is not a question of how the audit is done or of how well it is done. The question is that the Auditor General appointed under the great seal, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre put it, and entirely responsible to this parliament, makes recommendations regarding policy. It is not a question of the audit so much as it is a question of recommendations regarding policies that might be beneficial to the railway and indeed to the country. The recommendations there, it is true, are recommendations that auditors generally make relating to the manner in which the accounts are presented, examined and so forth, and that the matter does come before the committee. That is true. But if you questioned the auditors on matters which involved policy, as we are understanding policy in this discussion, I think they would take the position, and properly so, that they were not engaged to lay down policy but that that was a matter for the directors of the railway and of the house if the house decided it wished to amend the legislation under which the Canadian National Railways operate. I think the point has been missed, and I believe that the suggestions made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Greenwood are worthy of more consideration than the minister and the committee are giving to them at the moment. I was rather sorry to see the house adopt the motion for second reading of the bill. I think this matter should have been discussed before second reading was given, before we adopted the principle of this bill. I do not say that a change would be made but I think there is involved a principle that is worthy of consideration by the minister and by the railway itself.

Radio Act


Lionel Chevrier: I would not want my hon. friend to think that this matter has not been carefully considered.
Mr. Cold well: I am not suggesting that.


Lionel Chevrier: It has been considered on
more than one occasion. My hon. friend seems to be of the opinion that careful consideration has not been given-


Major James William Coldwell: I would not say that.


Lionel Chevrier: -to the representations made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Greenwood. It has been, on more than one occasion, and it was again when this bill came before the government, and we decided, after discussion of the matter, that we would again recommend the appointment of this firm of auditors.
Now, then, with reference to the point he makes concerning policy, the hon. gentleman is familiar with the fact that the Auditor General should not make recommendations as to policy. That is not his province and- there is a better word I am looking for but I cannot find it at the moment-neither is it of the present auditors under this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the the third time?


Lionel Chevrier: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Lionel Chevrier: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed on division.

Alphonse Fournier: I have spoken to the leaders of the other parties and suggested that we might call order No. 4 on today's order paper, the second reading of Bill No. 76, and have the minister make his statement. I do not think we would have time to complete the study of the bill this evening. I would suggest that that be done if hon. members have no objection.



RADIO ACT, 1938 VARIOUS AMENDMENTS  DEFINITION OF TELECOMMUNICATION    ACCESSION TO INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS, ETC.

Lionel Chevrier: the second reading of Bill No. 76, to amend the Radio Act, 1938.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything very contentious in the bill but the minister might explain it.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; I was going to do that. The purpose of this bill is to carry out and implement the terms of an agreement, in fact it is a treaty, made between Canada and the United States covering several matters in connection with radio. That is, the agreement made between the two countries was made in order to permit, first, pilots who are qualified radio operators to operate radio transmitters installed in civilian airplanes of the other country's registry; second, operators of mobile radio transmitters installed in vehicles used in public service or for commercial purposes in border areas and private persons with radio telephony installed in their cars while in the territory of the other country; and third, amateur wireless operators to use their sets while visiting the other country.
Section 5 of the act of 1938, which provides for the licensing of stations, is repealed by this amendment, and the new section provides for the necessity of a licence in the case of the operation of a private receiving station or a radio station by the making of regulations by the governor in council so that (a) radio receiving sets installed in an automobile or other vehicles and (b) a radio station temporarily in Canada may by these regulations be exempted from the operation of section 5 of the act.
Section 7 of the act of 1938 provides that no one shall be employed as a radio operator on any coast, land or mobile station unless he is a British subject, and also makes provision for the taking of an oath of secrecy. The amendment to that section permits the exemption by regulation of the classes mentioned in the treaty which are (a) radio operators employed on any radio station in Canada or (b) any person who holds a valid Canadian certificate of proficiency or an equivalent certificate issued by the country of which he is a citizen, and (c) is a citizen and resident of a country that grants a reciprocal permission to Canadian citizens.
In other words, the matters I have referred to so far are to implement the treaty entered into between Canada and the United States. There are two other small amendments, one of which is a new one and gives a new definition of telecommunication, and the other amends section 3 (1) (c) of the act by substituting "telecommunication" for the word "radio" which is there now. It is simply to clarify the act and to permit of approval under international agreements of telecommunication regulations, telegraph regulations

and the like. I do not think there is anything contentious in the bill. I think it is all to the good. It was given careful consideration by the two countries and I hope it will commend itself to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Telecommunication.
Major James William Coldwell: Is there any particular
reason why this amendment should be made
at this time? Some of the changes in the bill, the explanations and so on, seem to indicate that perhaps this may be due to some arrangements that are made in broadcasting and so on, between the two countries, that arise out of the present defence arrangement or the international situation. Has that anything to do with the agreement?


Lionel Chevrier: No, it has not, definitely.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On the title.
Clarence Gillis: Is there not a section 7 to this biU?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Clarence Gillis: In his explanation the minister made reference to qualifying section 7 of the act. He made reference to countries that
Radio Act
have a reciprocal arrangement with Canada. Win the minister teU me whether, when he used the words "reciprocal arrangements with other countries" he just meant Canada and the United States?


Lionel Chevrier: In this particular bin, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shaU the bin be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.
BiU read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will take up BiU No. 172, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act. This was read the first time today. Then we wiU proceed with Bill No. 188, to amend the Yukon Act, the resolution for which was passed this day; then BiU No. 189, to amend the Northwest Territories Act. Then we will move to go into supply, and call two departments, fisheries and labour. Perhaps we wiU go into the consideration of estimates of labour or fisheries tomorrow.
On motion of Mr. Fournier (HuU) the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
80709-100J

Tuesday, April 3, 1951